2-NRLF 


Bra 


ON 

TERMS  OF  COMMUNION; 


WITH 


Jl  PARTICULAR  VIEW  TO  THE  CASE 


OF    THE 


BAPTISTS 


PJEDOBAPTI 


BY  ROBERT  HAUL,  M.  A. 


First  American  (from  the  Third  English)  Edition, 

"  That  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee;  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us;  that  the 
world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me." — JESUS  CHRIST. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PUBLISHED  BY  ANTHONY  FINLEY. 
T.  S.  Manning,  Printer. 

1816. 


7  ^ 


PREFACE. 


THE  love  of  controversy  was  in  no  degree 
the  motive  for  writing  the  following  sheets.  Con- 
troversy the  writer  considers  as  an  evil,  though 
often  a  necessary  one.  It  is  to  be  deprecated 
when  it  is  directed  to  minute  or  frivolous  ob- 
jects, or  when  it  is  managed  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  call  forth  malevolent  passions.  He  hopes 
the  ensuing  treatise  will  be  found  free  from  both 
these  objections;  and  that  as  the  subject  must  be 
allowed  to  be  of  some  importance,  so  the  spirit 
in  which  it  is  handled,  is  not  chargeable  with  any 
material  departure  from  the  Christian  temper.  If 
the  Author  has  expressed  himself  on  some  occa- 
sions with  considerable  confidence,  he  trusts  the 
reader  will  impute  it,  not  to  a  forgetfulness  of 
his  personal  deficiences,  but  to  the  cause  he  has 


iv 

undertaken  to  support.  The  divided  state  of  the 
the  Christian  world  has  long  been  the  subject  of 
painful  reflection;  and  if  his  feeble  efforts  might 
be  the  means  of  uniting  a  small  portion  of  it 
only  in  closer  ties  he  will  feel  himself  amply  re- 
warded. 

The  practice  of  incorporating  private  opinions 
and  human  inventions  with  the  constitutions  of 
a  church,  and  with  the  terms  of  communion, 
has  long  appeared  to  him  untenable  in  its  prin- 
ciple, and  pernicious  in  its  effects.  There  is  no 
position  in  the  whole  compass  of  theology,  of 
the  truth  of  which  he  feels  a  stronger  persuasion, 
than  that  no  man,  or  set  of  men,  are  entitled  to 
prescribe  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  com- 
munion, what  the  New  Testament  has  not  en- 
joined as  a  condition  of  salvation.  To  establish 
this  position,  is  the  principal  object  of  the  follow- 
ing work;  and  though  it  is  more  immediately  oc- 
cupied in  the  discussion  of  a  case  which  respects 
the  Baptists  and  the  Paedobaptists,  that  case  is 
attempted  to  be  decided  entirely  upon  the  prin- 


V 

ciple  now  mentioned,  and  it  is  no  more  than  the 
application  of  it  to  a  particular  instance. 

The  Writer  is  persuaded  that  a  departure  from 
this  principle  in  the  denomination  to  which  he 
belongs,  has  been  extremely  injurious,  not  only 
to  the  credit  and  prosperity  of  that  particular  bo*- 
dy,  (which  is  a  very  subordinate  consideration,) 
but  to  the  general  interests  of  truth;  and  that  but 
for  the  obstruction  arising  from  that  quarter,  the 
views  they  entertain  of  one  of  the  sacraments 
would  have  obtained  a  more  extensive  preva- 
lence. By  keeping  themselves  in  a  state  of  se- 
paration and  seclusion  from  other  Christians, 
they  have  not  only  evinced  an  inattention  to  some 
of  the  most  important  injunctions  of  scripture, 
but  have  raised  up  an  invincible  barrier  to  the 
propagation  of  their  sentiments  beyond  the  pre- 
cincts of  their  own  party. 

It  has  been  insinuated  that  the  Author  has 
taken  an  unfair  advantage  of  his  opponents  by 

1* 


vi 

choosing  to  bring  forward  this  disquisition,  just 
at  the  moment  when  we  have  to  lament  the  loss 
of  a  person  whose  judgment  would  have  dis- 
posed, and  his  abilities  enabled  him  to  do  ample 
justice  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  question.  He 
can  assure  his  readers,  that  none  entertained  a 
higher  veneration  for  Mr.  Fuller  than  himself, 
notwithstanding  their  difference  of  sentiment  on 
this  subject:  and  that  when  he  entered  on  this 
discussion,  it  was  with  the  fullest  expectation  of 
having  his  opposition  to  encounter.  At  that  time 
his  state  of  health,  though  not  good,  was  such  as 
suggested  a  hope  that  the  event  was  very  distant 
which  we  all  deplore.  Having  been  led  to  men- 
tion this  affecting  circumstance,  I  cannot  refrain 
from  expressing  in  a  few  words  the  sentiments 
of  affectionate  veneration  with  which  I  always 
regarded  that  excellent  person  while  living,  and 
cherish  his  memory  now  that  he  is  no  more;  a 
man,  whose  sagacity  enabled  him  to  penetrate 
to  the  depths  of  every  subject  he  explored;  whose 
conceptions  were  so  powerful  and  luminous,  that 
what  was  recondite  and  original  appeared  fami- 


VII 

liar;  what  was  intricate,  easy  and  perspicuous  in 
his  hands;  equally  successful  in  enforcing  the 
practical,  stating  the  theoretical,  and  discussing 
the  polemical  branches  of  theology:  without  the 
advantage  of  early  education,  he  rose  to  high 
distinction  among  the  religious  writers  of  his 
day,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  most  active  and  labo- 
rious life,  left  monuments  of  his  piety  and  genius 
which  will  survive  to  distant  posterity.  Were  I 
making  his  eulogium,  I  should  necessarily  dwell 
on  the  spotless  integrity  of  his  private  life,  his 
fidelity  in  friendship,  his  neglect  of  self-interest, 
his  ardent  attachment  to  truth,  and  especially  the 
series  of  unceasing  labours  and  exertions  in  su- 
perintending the  mission  to  India,  to  which  he 
most  probably  fell  a  victim.  He  had  nothing  fee* 
ble  or  undecisive  in  his  character,  but  to  every 
undertaking  in  which  he  engaged,  he  brought  all 
the  powers  of  his  understanding,  all  the  energies 
of  his  heart;  and  if  he  were  less  distinguished  by 
the  comprehension,  than  the  acumen  and  solid- 
ity of  his  thoughts;  less  eminent  for  the  gentler 
graces,  than  for  stern  integrity  and  native  gran- 


Vlll 

deur  of  mind,  we  have  only  to  remember  the 
necessary  limitations  of  human  excellence.  While 
he  endeared  himself  to  his  denomination  by  a 
long  course  of  most  useful  labour,  by  his  excel- 
lent works  on  the  Socinian  and  Deistical  contro- 
versies, as  well  as  his  devotion  tp  the  cause  of 
missions,  he  laid  the  world  under  lasting  obliga- 
tions. Though  he  was  known  to  profess  differ- 
ent views  from  the  Writer  on  the  subject  under 
present  discussion,  it  may  be  inferred  from  a  de- 
cisive fact,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  record, 
that  his  attachment  to  them  was  not  very  strong, 
nor  his  conviction  probably  very  powerful.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  his  sanction  of  the  practice  of  ex- 
clusive communion,  has  no  doubt  contributed  in 
no  small  degree  to  recommend  it  to  the  denomi- 
nation of  which  he  was  so  distinguished  an  orna- 
ment. They  who  are  the  first  to  disclaim  human 
authority  in  the  affairs  of  religion,  are  not  always 
least  susceptible  of  its  influence. 

It  is  observable  also,  that  bodies  of  men  are 
very  slow  in  changing  their  opinions,  which  with 


IX 

some  inconveniences  is  productive  of  this  advan- 
tage, that  truth  undergoes  a  severer  investiga- 
tion, and  her  conquests  are  the  more  permanent 
for  being  gradually  acquired.  On  this  account 
the  Writer  is  not  so  sanguine  as  to  expect  his 
performance  will  occasion  any  sudden  revolu- 
tion in  the  sentiments  and  practice  of  the  class 
of  Christians -more  immediately  concerned;  if 
along  with  other  causes  it  ultimately  contribute 
to  so  desirable  an  issue,  he  shall  be  satisfied. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  assign  the  reason 
for  not  noticing  the  treatise  of  the  celebrated  Mr. 
Robinson,  of  Cambridge,  on  the  same  subject. 
It  is  not  because  he  is  insensible  to  the  ingenuity 
and  beauty  of  that  performance,  as  well  as  of  the 
other  works  of  that  original  and  extraordinary 
writer;  but  because  it  rests  on  principles  more 
lax  and  latitudinarian,  than  it  is  in  his  power  con- 
scientiously to  adopt;  Mr.  R.  not  having  advert- 
ed, as  far  as  he  perceives,  to  the  distinction  of 
fundamentals,  but  constructed  his  plea  for  tolc- 


X 

ration,*  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  comprehend  all 
the  varieties  of  religious  belief. 

The  only  author  I  have  professed  to  answer  is 
the  late  venerable  Booth,  his  treatise  being  gene- 
rally considered  by  our  opponents  as  the  ablest 
defence  of  their  hypothesis. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  I  commit  the  follow- 
ing treatise  to  the  candor  of  the  public,  and  the 
blessing  of  God,  hoping  that  as  it  is  designed  not 
to  excite,  but  to  allay  animosities;  not  to  widen, 
but  to  heal  the  breaches  among  Christians,  it 
will  meet  with  the  indulgence  due  to  good  inten- 
tions, however  feebly  executed. 

*  The  intelligent  reader  will  understand  me  to  refer, 
not  to  civil  toleration  by  the  state,  but  that  which  is  exer- 
cised by  religious  societies. 


ON  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


WHOEVER  forms  his  ideas  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  from  an  attentive  perusal  of  the  New 
Testament,  will  perceive  that  unity  is  one  of  its 
essential  characteristics;  and  that  though  it  be 
branched  out  into  many  distinct  societies,  it  is 
still  but  one.  "The  Church,"  says  Cyprian, 
"  is  one  which  by  reason  of  its  fecundity  is  ex- 
tended into  a  multitude,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  rays  of  the  sun,  however  numerous  consti- 
tute but  one  light;  and  the  branches  of  a  tree, 
however  many,  are  attached  to  one  trunk,  which 
is  supported  by  its  tenacious  root;  and  when 
various  rivers  flow  from  the  same  fountain, 
though  number  is  diffused  by  the  redundant 
supply  of  waters,  unity  is  preserved  in  their 


origin."  Nothing  more  abhorrent  from  the 
principles  and  maxims  of  the  sacred  oracles 
can  be  conceived,  than  the  idea  of  a  plurality 
of  true  churches,  neither  in  actual  communion 
with  each  other,  nor  in  a  capacity  for  such  com- 
munion. Though  this  rending  of  the  seamless 
garment  of  our  Saviour,  this  schism  in  the  mem- 
bers of  his  mystical  body,  is  by  far  the  greatest 
calamity  which  has  befallen  the  Christian  inte- 
rest, and  one  of  the  most  fatal  effects  of  the 
great  apostacy  foretold  by  the  sacred  penman, 
we  have  been  so  long  familiarised  to  it  as  to  be 
scarcely  sensible  of  its  enormity,  nor  does  it 
excite  surprise  or  concern,  in  any  degree  pro- 
portioned to  what  would  be  felt  by  one  who  had 
contemplated  the  church  in  the  first  ages.  To 
see  Christian  societies  regarding  each  other  with 
the  jealousies  of  rival  empires,  each  aiming  to 
raise  itself  on  the  ruin  of  all  others,  making 
extravagant  boasts  of  superior  purity,  generally 
in  exact  proportion  to  their  departures  from  it, 
and  scarcely  deigning  to  acknowledge  the  possi- 
bility of  obtaining  salvation  out  of  their  pale,  is 
the  odious  and  disgusting  spectacle  which  mod- 
ern Christianity  presents.  The  bond  of  charity, 
which  unites  the  genuine  followers  of  Christ  in 
distinction  from  the  world,  is  dissolved,  and  the 


13 

very  terms  by  which  it  was  wont  to  be  denoted5 
exclusively  employed  to  express  a  predilection 
for  a  sect.  The  evils  which  result  from  this  state 
of  division  are  incalculable:  it  supplies  infidels 
with  their  most  plausible  topics  of  invective;  it 
hardens  the  consciences  of  the  irreligious,  weak- 
ens the  hands  of  the  good,  impedes  the  efficacy 
of  prayer,  and  is  probably  the  principal  obstruc- 
tion to  that  ample  effusion  of  the  spirit  which  is 
essential  to  the  renovation  of  the  world. 

It  is  easier  however,  it  is  confessed,  to  deplore 
the  malady,  than  to  prescribe  the  cure:  for  how- 
ever important  the  preservation  of  harmony  and 
peace,  the  interests  of  truth  and  holiness  are 
still  more  so;  nor  must  we  forget  the  order  in 
which  the  graces  of  the  Spirit  are  arranged* 
"The  wisdom  which  is  from  above  is  first  pure, 
then  peaceable."  Peace  should  be  anxiously 
sought,  but  always  in  subordination  to  purity, 
and  therefore  every  attempt  to  reconcile  the  dif- 
ferences among  Christians  which  involves  the 
sacrifice  of  truth,  or  the  least  deliberate  devia- 
tion from  the  revealed  will  of  Christ,  is  spurious 
in  its  origin,  and  dangerous  in  its  tendency.  If 
communion  with  a  Christian  society  cannot  be 
had  without  a  compliance  with  rites  and  usages 


14 

which  we  deem  idolatrous  or  superstitious,  or 
without  a  surrender  of  that  liberty  in  which  we 
are  commanded  to  stand  fast,  we  must  as  we  va- 
lue'our  allegiance  forego,  however  reluctantly, 
the  advantages  of  such  a  union.  Wherever  pu- 
rity and  simplicity  of  worship  are  violated  by 
the  heterogeneous  mixture  of  human  inventions, 
we  are  not  at  liberty  to  comply  with  them  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  because  the  first  consideration  in 
every  act  of  worship  is  its  correspondence  with 
the  revealed  will  of  God,  which  will  often  jus- 
tify us  in  declining  the  external  communion  of 
a  church  with  which  we  cease  not  to  cultivate  a 
communion  in  spirit.  It  is  one  thing  to  decline 
a  connection  with  the  members  of  a  community 
absolutely,  or  simply  because  they  belong  to  such 
a  community,  and  another  to  join  with  them  in 
practices  which  we  deem  superstitious  and  er- 
roneous. In  the  latter  instance,  we  cannot  be  said 
absolutely  to  refuse  a  connection  with  the  pious 
part  of  such  societies,  we  decline  it  merely  be- 
cause it  is  clogged  with  conditions  which  render 
it  impracticable.  It  is  impossible  for  a  Protes- 
tant Dissenter  for  example,  without  manifest  in- 
consistency, to  become  a  member  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church;  but  to  admit  the  members  of  that 
community  to  participate  at  the  Lord's  table, 


15 

without  demanding  a  formal  renunciation,  of 
their  peculiar  sentiments,  includes  nothing  con- 
tradictory or  repugnant.  The  cases  are  totally 
distinct,  and  the  reasons  which  would  apply  for- 
cibly against  the  former,  would  be  irrelevant  to 
the  latter.  In  the  first  supposition,  the  Dissent- 
er, by  an  active  concurrence  in  what  he  professes 
to  disapprove,  ceases  to  dissent;  in  the  last,  no 
principle  is  violated,  no  practice  is  altered,  no 
innovation  is  introduced. 

Hence  arises  a  question,  how  far  we  are  jus- 
tified in  repelling  from  our  communion  those 
from  whom  we  differ  on  matters  confessedly  not 
essential  to  salvation,  when  that  communion  is 
accompanied  with  no  innovation  in  the  rites  of 
worship,  merely  on  account  of  diversity  of  senti- 
ment on  other  subjects.  In  other  words,  are  we 
at  liberty,  or  are  we  not,  to  walk  with  our  chris- 
tian  brethren  as  far  as  we  are  agreed^  or  must 
we  renounce  their  fellowship  on  account  of  error 
allowed  not  to  be  fundamental,"although  nothing 
is  proposed  to  be  done,  or  omitted,  in  such  acts 
of  communion,  which  would  not  equally  be  done, 
or  omitted,  on  the  supposition  of  their  absence? 
Such  is  the  precise  state  of  the  question  which 
it  is  mj*  intention  to  discuss  in  these  pages;  and 


16 

it  may  possibly  contribute  to  its  elucidation  to 
observe,  that  the  true  idea  of  Christian  commu- 
nion  is  by  no  means  confined  to  a  joint  partici- 
pation of  the  Lord's  supper.  He  who  in  the 
words  of  the  Apostle's  creed  expresses  his  be- 
lief in  the  communion  of  saints,  adverts  to  much 
more  than  is  comprehended  in  one  particular 
act.  In  an  intelligent  assent  to  that  article,  is 
comprehended  the  total  of  that  sympathy  and 
affection,  with  all  its  natural  expressions  and  ef- 
fects, by  which  the  followers  uf  Christ  are  uni- 
ted, in  consequence  of  their  union  with  their 
head,  and  their  joint  share  in  the  common  sal- 
vation. The  kiss  of  charity  in  the  apostolic  age, 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  a  share  in  the  ob- 
lations of  the  church,  a  commendatory  epistle 
attesting  the  exemplary  character  of  the  bearer, 
uniting  in  social  prayer,  the  employment  of  the 
term  brother  or  sister  to  denote  spiritual  consan- 
guinity, were  all  considered  in  the  purest  ages 
as  tokens  of  communion;  a  term  which  is  never 
applied  in  the  New  Testament  exclusively  to  the 
Lord's  supper.  When  it  is  used  in  connection 
with  that  rite,  it  is  employed,  not  to  denote  the 
fellowship  of  Christians,  but  the  spiritual  parti- 
cipation of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.^ 
*  I,  Corinthians,  x.  16. 


17 

When  we  engage  a  Christian  brother  to  present 
supplications  to  God  in  our  behalf,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  we  have  fellowship  with  him,  not 
less  real  or  spiritual  than  at  the  Lord's  table. 
From  these  considerations  it  is  natural  to  infer, 
that  no  scruple  ought  to  be  entertained  respect- 
ing the  lawfulness  of  uniting  to  commemorate 
our  Saviour's  death,  with  those  with  whom  we 
feel  ourselves  at  liberty  to  join  in  every  other 
branch  of  religious  worship.  Where  no  attempt 
is  made  to  obscure  its  import,  or  impair  its  sim- 
plicity, by  the  introduction  of  human  ceremonies, 
but  it  is  proposed  to  be  celebrated  in  the  man- 
ner which  we  apprehend  to  be  perfectly  conso- 
nant to  the  mind  of  Christ,  it  would  seem  less 
reasonable  to  refuse  to  co-operate  in  this  branch 
of  religion  than  in  any  other,  because  it  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  memorial  of  the  greatest  instance 
of  love  that  was  ever  exhibited,  as  well  as  the 
principal  pledge  of  Christian  fraternity.  It  must 
appear  surprising  that  the  rite  which  of  all  others 
is  most  adapted  to  cement  mutual  attachment, 
and  which  is  in  a  great  measure  appointed  for 
that  purpose,  should  be  fixed  upon  as  the  line  of 
demarcation,  the  impassable  barrier,  to  separate 
and  disjoin  the  followers  of  Christ.  He  who  ad- 
mits his  fellow  Christians  to  share  in  every  other 


18 

spiritual  privilege,  while  he  prohibits  his  ap- 
proach to  the  Lord's  table,  entertains  a  view  of 
that  institution,  diametrically  opposite  to  what 
has  usually  prevailed;  he  must  consider  it  not  so 
much  in  the  light  of  a  commemoration  of  his 
SaviourV  death  and  passion,  as  a  religious  test, 
designed  to  ascertain  and  establish  an  agreement 
•in  points  not  fundamental.  According  to  this  no- 
tion of  it,  it  is  no  longer  a  symbol  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity,  it  is  the  badge  and  criterion  of 
a  party,  a  mark  of  discrimination  applied  to  dis- 
tinguish the  nicer  shades  of  difference  among 
Christians.  How  far  either  scripture  or  reason 
can  be  adduced  in  support  of  such  a  view  of  the 
subject,  it  will  be  the  business  of  the  following 
pages  to  inquire. 

In  the  mean  while  it  will  be  necessary,  in  or- 
der to  render  the  argument  perfectly  intelligible, 
to  premise  a  few  words  respecting  the  particular 
controversy  on  which  the  ensuing  observations 
are  meant  especially  to  bear.  Few  of  my  readers 
probably  require  to  be  informed,  that  there  is  a 
class  of  Christians  pretty  widely  diffused  through 
these  realms,  who  deny  the  validity  of  infant- 
baptism,  considering  it  as  a  human  invention, 
not  countenanced  by  the  scriptures,  nor  by  the 


19 

practice  of  the  first  and  purest  ages.  Besides 
their  denial  of  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism, 
they  also  contend  for  the  exclusive  validity  of 
immersion  in  that  ordinance,  in  distinction  from, 
the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water.  In  support 
of  the  former,  they  allege  the  total  silence  of 
scripture  respecting  the  baptism  of  infants,  to- 
gether with  their  incompetence  to  comprehend 
the  truths,  or  sustain  the  engagements,  which 
they  conceive  it  designed  to  exhibit.  For  the  lat- 
ter, they  urge  the  well-known  import  of  the  ori- 
ginal word  employed  to  express  the  baptismal 
rite,  which  they  allege  cannot,  without  the  most 
unnatural  violence,  be  understood  to  command 
any  thing  less  than  an  immersion  of  the  whole 
body.  The  class  of  Christians  whose  sentiments 
I  am  relating,  are  usually  known  by  the  appella- 
tion of  Baptists;  in  contradistinction  from  whom, 
all  other  Christians  may  properly  be  denominated 
Pcedobaptists.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  enter  into 
a  defence  of  their  peculiar  tenets,  though  they 
have  my  unqualified  approbation;  but  merely  to 
state  them  for  the  information  of  my  readers. 
It  must  be  obvious  that  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Baptists,  such  as  have  only  received  the  baptis- 
mal rite  in  their  infancy  must  be  deemed  in  re- 
ality unbaptized;  for  this  is  only  a  different  mode 


so 

of  expressing  their  conviction  of  the  invalidity 
of  infant-sprinkling.  On  this  ground,  they  have 
lor  the  most  part  confined  their  communion  to 
persons  of  their  own  persuasion,  in  which,  il- 
liberal as  it  may  appear,  they  are  supported 
by  the  general  practice  of  the  Christian  world, 
which  whatever  diversities  of  opinion  may  have 
prevailed,  have  generally  concurred  in  insisting 
upon  baptism  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite 
to  the  Lord's  table.  The  effect  which  has 
resulted  in  this  particular  case  has  indeed  been 
singular,  but  it  has  arisen  from  a  rigid  ad- 
herence to  a  principle  almost  universally  adopt- 
ed, that  baptism  is,  under  all  circumstances,  a 
necessary  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  supper. 
The  practice  we  are  now  specifying  has  usu- 
ally been  termed  strict  communion,  while  the  op- 
posite practice  of  admitting  sincere  Christians 
to  the  eucharist,  though  in  our  judgment  not 
baptized,  is  styled  free  communion.  Strict  com- 
munion is  the  general  practice  of  our  churches, 
though  the  abettors  of  the  opposite  opinion  are 
rapidly  increasing  both  in  numbers  and  in  re- 
spectability. The  humble  hope  of  casting  some 
additional  light  on  a  subject  which  appears  to  me 
of  no  trivial  importance,  is  my  only  motive  for 
composing  this  treatise,  in  which  it  will  be  neces- 


81 

sary  to  attempt  the  establishment  of  principles 
sufficiently  comprehensive  to  decide  other  ques- 
tions in  ecclesiastical  polity,  besides  those  which 
concern  the  present  controversy.  I  am  greatly 
mistaken  if  it  be  possible  to  bring  it  to  a  satis- 
factory issue,  without  adverting  to  topics  in 
which  the  Christian  world  are  not  less  interested 
than  the  Baptists.  If  the  conclusions  we  shall 
endeavour  to  establish,  appear  on  impartial  in- 
quiry to  be  well  founded,  it  will  follow  that  seri- 
ous errors  respecting  terms  of  communion  have 
prevailed  to  a  wide  extent  in  the  Christian  church. 
It  will  be  my  anxious  endeavour,  in  the  progress 
of  this  discussion,  to  avoid  whatever  is  calculated 
to  irritate;  and  instead  of  acting  the  part  of  a 
pleader,  to  advance  no  argument  which  has  not 
been  well  weighed,  and  of  whose  validity  I  am 
not  perfectly  convinced.  The  inquiry  will  be  pur- 
sued under  two  parts;  in  the  first,  I  shall  consider 
the  arguments  in  favour  of  strict  communion;  in 
the  second,  state  with  all  possible  brevity  the  evi- 
dence by  which  we  attempt  to  sustain  the  oppo- 
site practice. 


23 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  STRICT  COMMUNION 

CONSIDERED. 

PART  I. 

IN  reviewing  the  arguments  which  are  usu- 
ally urged  for  the  practice  of  strict  communion^ 
or  the  exclusion  of  unbaptized  persons  from  the 
Lord's  table,  I  shall  chiefly  confine  myself  to  the 
examination  of  such  as  are  adduced  by  the  vene- 
rable Mr.  Booth,  in  his  treatise  styled  "An  Apo- 
logy for  the  Baptists,59  because  he  is  not  only  held 
in  the  highest  esteem  by  the  whole  denomination, 
but  is  allowed  by  his  partizans  to  have  exhibited 
the  full  force  of  their  cause.  He  writes  on  the 
subject  under  discussion,  with  all  his  constitu- 
tional ardour  and  confidence,  which,  supported 
by  the  spotless  integrity,  and  elevated  sanctity 
of  the  man,  have  contributed,  more  perhaps  than 
any  other  cause,  to  fortify  the  Baptists  in  their 
prevailing  practice.  I  trust  the  free  strictures 
which  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  on  his  per- 
formance, will  not  be  deemed  inconsistent  with 


24 

a  sincere  veneration  for  his  character,  which  I 
should  be  sorry  to  see  treated  with  the  unsparing 
ridicule  and  banter,  with  which  he  has  assailed 
Mr.  Bunyan,  a  name  equally  dear  to  genius  and 
to  piety.  The  reader  will  not  expect  me  to  follow 
him  in  his  declamatory  excursions,  or  in  those 
miscellaneous  quotations,  often  irrelevant,  which 
the  extent  of  his  reading  has  supplied:  it  will  suf- 
fice if  I  carefully  examine  his  arguments,  with- 
out omitting  a  single  consideration  on  which  he 
could  be  supposed  to  lay  a  stress. 

SECTION  I. 

The  argument  from  the  order  of  time  in  'which 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  supposed  to 
have  been  instituted* 

ONE  of  the  principal  pleas  in  favour  of  strict 
communion  is  derived  from  the  supposed  priority 
of  the  institution  of  baptism  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per. "  That  baptism  was  an  ordinance  of  God," 
say  our  opponents,  "  that  submission  to  it  was 
required,  that  it  was  administered  to  multitudes 
before  the  sacred  supper  was  heard  of,  are  unde- 
niable facts.  There  never  was  a  time  since  the 
ministry  of  our  Lord's  successors,  in  which  it 


25 

was  not  the  duty  of  repenting  and  believing  sin- 
ners to  be  baptized.  The  venerable  John,  the 
twelve  Apostles,  and  the  Son  of  God  incarnate, 
all  united  in  commanding  baptism,  at  a  time  when 
it  would  have  been  impious  to  have  eaten  bread, 
and  drank  wine,  as  an  ordinance  of  divine  wor- 
ship. Babtism,  therefore,  had  the  priority  in 
point  of  institution,  which  is  a  presumptive  evi- 
dence that  it  has,  and  ever  will  have,  a  prior  claim 
to  our  obedience.  So  under  the  ancient  economy, 
sacrifices  and  circumcision  were  appointed  and 
practised  in  the  patriarchal  ages:  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  the  paschal  feast,  and  burning  incensein. 
the  holy  place,  were  appointed  by  the  God  of  Is- 
rael. But  the  two  former  being  prior  in  point  of 
institution,  always  had  the  priority  in  point  of 
administration.'1* 

As  this  is  a  leading  argument,  and  will  go  far 
towards  determining  the  point  at  issue,  the  read- 
er will  excuse  the  examination  of  it  being  ex* 
tended  to  some  length.  It  proceeds  obviously 
entirely  on  a  matter  of  fact,  which  it  assumes  as 
undeniable,  the  priority  in  point  of  time  of  the 
institution  of  Christian  baptism,  to  that  of  the 
Lord's  supper;  and  this  again  rests  on  another 


*  Booth's  Apology,  page  41. 
3 


26 

assumption,  which  is  the  indentity  of  John's  bap- 
tism with  that  of  our  Lord.  If  it  should  clearly 
appear  that  these  were  two  distinct  institutes,  the 
argument  will  be  reversed,  and  it  will  be  evi- 
dent that  the  eucharist  was  appointed  and  cele- 
brated before  Christian  baptism  existed.  Let  me 
request  the  reader  not  to  be  startled  at  the  para- 
doxical air  of  this  asssertion,  but  to  lend  an  im- 
partial attention  to  the  following  reasons: 

l.The  commission  to  baptize  all  nations,  which 
was  executed  by  the  Apostles  after  our  Saviour's 
resurrection,  originated  in  'his  express  command; 
John's  baptism,  it  is  evident,  had  no  such  origin. 
John  had  baptized  for  some  time  before  he  knew 
him:  it  is  certain  then,  that  he  did  not  receive 
his  commission  from  him.  u  And  I  knew  him 
not,"  saith  he,  u  but  that  he  should  be  made  man- 
ifest to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water."  If  the  manifesting  Christ  to  Israel  was 
the  end  and  design  of  John's  mission,  he  must 
have  been  in  a  previous  state  of  obscurity;  not  in 
a  situation  to  act  the  part  of  a  legislator  by  en- 
acting laws  or  establishing  rites.  John  uniformly 
ascribes  Tiis  commission,  not  to  Christ,  but  the 
Father,  so  that  to  assert  his  baptism  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian institute,  is  not  to  interpret,  but  to  contra- 
dict him, u  And  I  knew  him  not,"  is  his  language, 


"  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the 
same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see 
the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  I  saw,  and  bare  record,  that  this  is  the  Son 
of  God."  It  was  not  till  he  had  accredited  his 
mission,  by  many  miracles,  and  other  demonstra- 
tions of  a  preternatural  power  and  wisdom,  that 
our  Lord  proceeded  to  modify  religion  by  new 
institutions,  of  which  the  eucharist  is  the  first 
example.  But  a  Christian  ordnance  not  founded 
on  the  authority  of  Christ,  noi  the  effect,  bur  the 
means  of  his  manifestation,  which  was  first  exe- 
cuted by  one  who  knew  him  not,  is  to  me  an  in- 
comprehensible mystery. 

2.  The  baptism  of  John  was  the  baptism  of 
repentance,  or  reformation,  as  'a  preparation  for 
the  approaching  kingdom  of  God:  the  institute 
of  Christ  included  an  explicit  profession  of  faith 
in  a  particular  person,  as  the  Lord  of  that  king- 
dom. The  ministry  of  John  was  the  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  u  Prepare  ye  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  make  his  paths  strait."  All  he  demand- 
ed of  such  as  repaired  to  him,  was  to  declare 
their  conviction  that  the  Messiah  was  shortly  to 
appear,  to  repent  of  their  sins,  and  resolve  to 
frame  their  lives  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  such 


28 

an  expectation,  without  requiring  a  belief  in  any 
existing  individual  as  the  Messiah.  They  were 
merely  to  express  their  readiness  to  believe  on 
him  who  was  to  come,*  on  the  reasonable  suppo- 
sition that  his  actual  appearance  would  not  fail  to 
be  accompanied  with  attestations  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish his  pretensions.  The  profession  required 
in  a  candidate  for  Christian  baptism,  involved  an 
historical  faith,  a  belief  in  a  certain  individual, 
an  illustrious  personage,  who  had  wrought  mira- 
cles, declared  himself  the  Son  of  God,  was  cru- 
cified under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  rose  again  the 
third  day.  As  the  conviction  demanded  in  the 
two  cases  was  totally  distinct,  it  was  possible 
for  him  who  sincerely  avowed  the  one,  to  be 
destitute  of  the  other;  and  though  the  rejection 
of  Christ  by  John's  converts  would  have  been 
criminal  and  destructive  of  salvation,  it  would 
not  have  been  self-contradictory,  or  absurd,  since 
he  might  sincerely  believe  on  his  testimony  that 
the  Christ  was  shortly  to  appear,  and  make  some 
preparations  for  his  approach,  who  was  not  satis- 
fied with  his  character,  when  he  was  actually 
manifested. 
That  such  was  the  real  situation  of  the  great 

*  Acts  xix.  4. 


29 

body  of  the  Jewish  people,  at  our  Lord's  advent, 
is  evident  from  the  evangelical  records.  Inshort? 
the  profession  demanded  in  the  baptism  of  John 
was  nothing  more  than  a  solemn  recognition  of 
that  great  article  of  the  Jewish  faith,  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Messiah,  accompanied  indeed  with 
this  additional  circumstance,  that  it  was  nigh  at 
hand.  The  faith  required  by  the  Apostles  in- 
cluded a  persuasion  of  all  the  miraculous  facts 
which  they  attested,  comprehending  the  preter- 
natural conception,  the  Deity,  incarnation  and 
atonement,  the  miracles,  the  death,  and  the  re- 
surrection of  the  Lord  Jesus.  In  the  one  was 
contained  a  general  expectation  of  the  speedy  ap- 
pearance of  an  illustrious  person  under  the  char- 
acter of  the  Messiah;  in  the  other,  an  explicit 
declaration  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whose  life 
and  death  are  recorded  in  the  Evangelists,  was 
the  identical  person.  But  in  order  to  constitute 
an  identity  in  religious  rites,  two  things  are  re- 
quisite, a  sameness  in  the  corporeal  action,  and  a 
sameness  in  the  import.  The  action  may  be  the 
same,  yet  the  rites  totally  different  or  Christian 
baptism  must  be  confounded  with  legal  Jewish 
purifications,  the  greater  part  of  which  consisted 
in  a  total  immersion  of  the  body  in  water.  The 
diversity  of  signification,  the  distinct  uses  to 
3  * 


30 

svhich  they  were  applied,  constitute  their  only- 
difference,  but  quite  sufficient  to  render  it  absurd 
to  consider  them  as  one  and  the  same.  And  sure- 
ly he  is  guilty  of  a  similar  mistake  who,  misled 
by  the  exact  resemblance  of  the  actions  physical- 
ly considered,  confounds  the  rite  intended  to  re- 
nounce the  future,  though  speedy  appearance  of 
the  Messiah,  without  defining  his  person,  and  the 
ceremony  expressive  of  a  firm  belief  in  an  iden- 
tical person,  as  already  manifested  under  that  il- 
lustrious character. 

3.  Christian  baptism  was  invariably  adminis- 
tered in  the  name  of  jfesus;  while  there  was  suf- 
ficient evidence  that  John's  was  not  performed 
in  that  name.  That  it  was  not  during  the  first 
stage  of  his  ministry  is  certain,  because  we  learn 
from  his  own  declaration,  that  when  he  first  ex- 
ecuted his  commission  he  did  not  know  him,  but 
was  previously  apprised  of  a  miraculous  sign, 
which  should  serve  to  identify  him  when  he  ap- 
peared. In  order  to  obviate  the  suspicion  of  col- 
lusion or  conspiracy,  circumstances  were  so  ar- 
ranged that  John  remained  ignorant  of  the  per- 
son of  the  Saviour,  and  possessed,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  his  career,  that  knowledge  only 
of  the  Messiah,  which  was  common  to  enlight- 
ened Jews*  If  we  suppose  him  at  a  subsequent 


31 

period  to  have  incorporated  the  name  of  Jesus 
with  his  institute,  an  alteration  so  striking  would 
unquestionably  have  been  noticed  by  the  Evan- 
gelists, as  it  must  have  occasioned  among  the 
people  much  speculation  and  surprise,  of  which 
however,  no  traces  are  perceptible.  Besides,  it 
is  impossible  to  peruse  the  gospels  with  atten- 
tion, without  remarking  the  extreme  reserve 
maintained  by  our  Lord,  with  respect  to  his 
claim  to  the  character  of  Messiah,  that  he  stu^ 
diously  avoided,  until  his  arraignment  before  the 
High  Priest,  the  public  declaration  of  that  fact; 
that  he  wrought  his  principal  miracles  in  the  ob- 
scure province  of  Galilee,  often  accompanied 
with  strict  injunctions  of  secrecy;  and  that  the 
whole  course  of  his  ministry,  till  its  concluding 
scene,  was  so  conducted,  as  at  once  to  afford  sin- 
cere inquirers  sufficient  evidence  of  his  mission, 
and  to  elude  the  malice  of  his  enemies.  In  de- 
scending from  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  where 
he  had  been  proclaimed  the  Son  of  God  from 
the  most  excellent  glory,  he  strictly  charged  the 
disciples  who  accompanied  him  to  tell  no  man  of 
it,  till  he  was  raised  from  the  dead.  The  appel- 
lation he  constantly  assumed  was  that  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  which  whatever  be  its  precise  import, 
could  by  no  construction  become  the  ground  of 


38 

a  criminal  charge.  When  at  the  feast  of  dedica- 
tion, "  the  Jews  came  around  him  in  the  temple, 
saying,  how  long  dost  thou  keep  us  in  suspense; 
if  thou  be  the  Christ  tell  us  plainly:"  he  replied, 
"  I  have  told  you  and  ye  believe  not:  the  works 
which  I  do  in  my  Father's  name  they  bear  wit- 
ness of  me."*  From  this  passage  it  is  evident  that 
our  Lord  had  not  hitherto  publicly  and  explicit- 
ly affirmed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  or  there 
would  have  been  no  foundation  for  the  complaint 
of  these  Jews;  nor  does  he  on  this  occasion  ex- 
pressly affirm  it,  but  refers  them  to  the  testi- 
mony of  his  works,  without  specifying  the  pre- 
cise import  of  that  attestation.  In  the  progress 
of  his  discourse,  however,  he  advances  nearer 
to  an  open  declaration  of  his  Messiah-ship  than 
on  any  former  occasion,  affirming  his  Father  and 
himself  to  be  one,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
people  attempt  to  stone  him,  as  guilty  of  blasphe- 
my, in  making  himself  the  Son  of  God.  As  his 
time  was  not  yet  come,  he  still  maintains  a  degree 
of  his  wonted  caution,  and  vindicates  his  assump- 
tion of  that  honour,  upon  principles  far  inferior 
to  what  he  might  justly  have  urged.  Yet  such 
was  the  effect  of  this  discourse,  that  in  order  to 

*  John,  x.  22.  30. 


33 

;  screen  himself  from  the  fury  of  his  enemies,  he 
found  it  necessary  immediately  to  retire  beyond 
Jordan.  In  an  advanced  stage  of  his  ministry,  we 
find  him  inquiring  of  his  disciples  the  prevailing 
opinions  entertained  respecting  himself;  on  which 
they  reply,  "  Some  say  thou  art  John  the  Baptist, 
others  Elias,  others  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the  Pro- 
phets/' That  he  was  the  Messiah,  was  not,  it  is 
evident,  the  opinion  generally  entertained  at  that 
time,  by  such  as  were  most  favourably  disposed 
towards  his  character  and  pretensions,  which  it 
could  not  fail  to  have  been,  had  this  title  been 
publicly  proclaimed;  but  this  was  so  far  from  his 
intention,  that  when  Peter,  in  the  name  of  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles,  uttered  that  glorious  con- 
fession, uThou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God;"  our  Lord  immediately  enjoins  se- 
crecy. What  he  enjoined  his  disciples  not  to  pub- 
lish, he  certainly  did  not  publish  himself,  nor  for 
the  same  reason  suffer  it  to  be  indiscriminately 
proclaimed  by  his  forerunner.  But  if  we  suppose 
John  to  baptize  in  his  name,  we  must  suppose 
what  is  equivalent  to  an  explicit  declaration  of 
his  being  the  Messiah;  for  since  he  on  all  occa- 
sions predicted  the  speedy  appearance  of  that 
great  personage,  the  people  could  not  fail  to  iden- 
tify with  him,  the  individual  whose  name  was 


34 

thus  employed,  and  all  the  precautions  maintain- 
ed by  our  Saviour  would  have  been  utterly  de- 
feated. For  what  possible  purpose  could  he  for- 
bid his  disciples  to  publish,  what  John  is  sup- 
posed to  have  promulgated  as  often  as  he  admin- 
istered the  babtismal  rite?  and  how  shall  we  ac- 
count on  this  hypothesis  for  the  diversity  of 
opinion  which  prevailed  respecting  his  character, 
among  those  who  were  thoroughly  convinced  of 
the  Divine  mission  of  that  great  Prophet?  From 
these  considerations,  in  addition  to  the  total  si- 
lence of  scripture,  the  judicious  reader,  I  pre- 
sume, will  conclude  without  hesitation  that  John 
did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  which  is 
an  essential  ingredient  in  Christian  baptism;  and 
though  it  is  administered,  in  fact  in  the  name  of 
each  person  of  the  blessed  Godhead,  not  in  that 
of  the  Son  only,  this  instead  of  impairing, 
strengthens  the  argument,  by  enlarging  still  far- 
ther the  difference  betwixt  the  two  ordinances  in 
question;  for  none  will  contend  that  John  im- 
mersed his  disciples  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity. 

4.  The  baptism  instituted  by  our  Lord,  is  in 
scripture  distinguished  from  that  of  the  forerun- 
ner by  the  superior  effects  with  which  it  was  ac- 
companied; so  that  instead  of  being  confounded, 


35 

they  are  contrasted  in  the  sacred  historians.  "  I 
indeed,"  said  John,  "  baptize  you  with  water  un- 
to repentance,  but  there  cometh  one  after  me  who 
is  mightier  than  I — he  shall  baptize  you  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire."  The  rite  administered 
by  John  was  a  mere  immersion  in  water,  unac- 
companied with  that  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  that 
redundant  supply  of  supernatural  gifts  and  graces 
which  distinguished  the  subjects  of  the  Christian 
institute.  On  the  passage  just  quoted,  St.  Chry- 
sostom  has  the  following  comment: — u  Having 
agitated  their  minds  with  the  fear  of  future  judg- 
ment, and  the  expectation  of  punishment,  and 
the  mention  of  the  axe,  and  the  rejection  of  their 
ancestors,  and  the  substitution  of  a  new  race,  to- 
gether with  the  double  menace  of  excision  and 
burning,  and  by  all  these  means  softened  their 
obduracy,  and  disposed  them  to  a  desire  of  de- 
liverance from  these  evils,  he  then  introduces 
the  mention  of  Christ,  not  in  a  simple  manner, 
but  with  much  elevation;  in  exhibiting  his  own 
disparity,  lest  he  should  appear  to  be  using  the 
language  of  compliment,  he  commences  by  stat- 
ing a  comparison  betwixt  the  benefit  \t  towed  by 
each  For  he  did  not  immedia.ely  say,  I  am  not 
worthy  to  unloose  the  latch  t  <>t  tiis  shoes,  but 
having  first  stated  the  insignificance  of  his  own 


36 

baptism,  and  shewn  that  it  had  no  effect  beyond 
bringing  them  to  repentance,  (for  he  did  not 
style  it  the  water  of  remission,  but  of  repentance), 
he  proceeds  to  the  baptism  ordained  by  Christ, 
which  was  replete  with  an  ineffable  gift"*  This 
eminent  Father,  we  perceive,  insists  on  the  pro- 
digious inferiority  of  the  ceremony  performed 
by  John  to  the  Christian  sacrament,  from  its  be- 
ing a  symbol  of  repentance,  without  comprehend* 
ing  the  remission  of  sins,f  or  the  donation  of  the 
Spirit.  The  Evangelists,  Mark  and  Luke,  it  is 
true,  affirm  that  John  preached  the  baptism  of 
repentanceyir  the  remission  of  sins,  whence  we 
are  entitled  to  infer  that  the  rite  which  he  ad* 
ministered,  when  accompanied  with  suitable  dis- 
positions, was  important  in  the  order  of  prepa- 
ration, not  that  it  was  accompanied  with  the  im- 
mediate or  actual  collation  of  that  benefit. 

Such  as  repented  at  his  call,  stood  fair  candi- 
dates for  the  blessings  of  the  approaching  dispen- 
sation, among  which  an  assurance  of  pardon,  the 
adoption  of  children,  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit, 
held  the  most  conspicuous  place;  blessings  of 
which  it  was  the  office  of  John  to  excite  the  ex- 
peciation,  but  of  Christ  to  bestow.  The  effusion 
of  the  Spirit,  indeed,  in  the  multifarious  forms 

*  Homily  xi.  on  Matthew.     |  Mark  i.  4.  Luke  iii,  $. 


37 

of  his  miraculous  and  sanctifying  operation,  may 
be  considered  as  equivalent  to  them  all;  and 
this  we  are  distinctly  told,  was  not  given  (save  in  a 
very  scanty  manner)  during  our  Lord's  abode  upon 
earth,  because  he  was  not  yet  glorified.  Reserved 
to  adorn  the  triumph  of  the  ascended  Saviour, 
the  Apostles  were  commanded  to  wait  at  Jerusa- 
lem until  it  was  bestowed,  which  was  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  when  u  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of 
a  mighty  wind,  filled  the  place  where  they  were 
assembled,  and  cloven  tongues  of  fire  sat  upon 
each  of  them,  and  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  was  the  first  example  of  that  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  as  the  author  of  which,  John 
asserts  the  immense  superiority  of  the  Messiah, 
not  to  himself  only,  but  to  all  preceding  prophets. 
In  the  subsequent  history,  we  perceive  that  this 
gift  was,  on  all  ordinary  occasions,  conferred  in 
connection  with  baptism.  In  this  connection,  it  is 
exhibited  by  St.  Peter  in  his  address  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost: — "Repent  and  be  baptized,  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.'5 

Thus  it  was  also  in  the  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus. 
Agreeable  to  our  Lord's  prediction  of  the  signs 
which  should  accompany  them  that  believe,  there 
4 


38 

is  reason  to  suppose  a  greater  or  less  measure  of 
these  supernatural  endowments,  regularly  accom- 
panied the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Apos- 
tles on  primitive  converts,  immediately  subsequent 
to  their  baptism;  which  affords  an  easy  solution  to 
the  surprise  Paul  appears  to  have  felt,  in  finding 
certain  disciples  at  Ephesus,  who  though  they  had 
been  baptized,  were  yet  unacquainted  with  these 
communications.  "  Into  what  then,"  he  asks, 
"  were  ye  baptized?"  and  upon  being  informed 
"  into  John's  baptism,"  the  difficulty  vanished. 

Since  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the 
copious  effusion  of  spiritual  influences,  in  which 
primitive  Christians  were,  so  to  speak,  immersed, 
was  appointed  to  follow  the  sacramental  use  of 
water,  under  the  Christian  economy,  while  the 
same  corporeal  action  performed  by  John  was 
a  naked  ceremony,  not  accompanied  by  any  such 
effects,  this  difference  betwixt  them  is  sufficient 
to  account  for  their  being  contrasted  in  scripture, 
and  ought  ever  to  have  prevented  their  being 
confounded,  as  one  and  the  same  institute. 

5.  The  case  of  the  disciples  at  Ephesus,  to 
which  we  have  just  adverted,  affords,  a  demon- 
strative proof  of  the  position  for  which  we  are 
contending;  for  if  John's  baptism  was  the  same 
with  our  Lord's,  upon  what  principle  could  Saint 


39 

Paul  proceed  in  administering  the  latter  to  such 
as  had  already  received  the  former.  As  I  am 
aware  that  some  have  attempted  to  deny  so  plain 
a  fact,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  quote  the  whole  passage, 
which,  I  am  persuaded,  will  leave  no  doubt  on  the 
mind  of  the  impartial  reader: — "  It  came  to  pass 
while  Apollos  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  passing 
through  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus,  and 
finding  certain  disciples,  said  unto  them,  Have  ye 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  but 
they  replied  we  have  not  even  heard  that  there  is 
an  Holy  Ghost.  He  said  unto  them,  into  what 
then  were  ye  baptized?  they  said  into  John's  bap- 
tism. Paul  replied,  John  indeed  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people, 
that  they  should  believe  on  him  who  was  to  come, 
that  is  on  Jesus  Christ.  And  when  they  heard 
this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus;  and  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon 
them  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them,  and  they 
spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied."  I  am  con- 
scious that  there  are  not  wanting  some  who  pretend 
that  the  fifth  verse1*'  is  to  be  interpreted  as  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  Paul,  affirming  that  at  the  command 

*  "  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."— Acts  xix.  5. 


40 

of  John,  the  people  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Jesus.  But  not  to  repeat  what  has  already  been  ad- 
vanced to  shew  that  is  contrary  to  fact  (for  who, 
I  might  ask,  were  the  people,  who  at  his  instiga- 
tion were  baptized  in  that  name,  or  what  traces 
are  in  the  evangelical  history  of  such  a  practice, 
during  the  period  of  his  ministry?)  not  to  insist 
further  on  this,  it  is  obvious  that  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  contradicts  itself:  for  if  John 
told  the  people  that  they  were  to  believe  on  him 
who  was  to  come,  this  was  equivalent  to  declar- 
ing that  he  had  not  yet  manifested  himself;  while 
the  baptizing  in  his  name  as  an  existing  individu- 
al, would  have  been  to  affirm  the  contrary.  Be- 
sides we  must  remark,  that  the  persons  on  whom 
St.  Paul  is  asserted  to  have  laid  his  hands  were 
unquestionably  the  identical  persons  who  are  af- 
firmed in  the  preceding  verse  to  have  been  bap- 
tized; for  there  is  no  other  antecedent,  so  that  if 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  be  what  some  contend 
for,  the  sacred  historian  must  be  supposed  to  as- 
sert that  he  laid  his  hands,  not  on  the  twelve  dis- 
ciples at  Ephesus,but  on  John's  converts  in  gene- 
ral, that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them,  and 
that  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied, 
which  is  ineffably  absurd. 

Either  this  must  be   supposed  or  the  words 


41 

which  in  their  original  structure  are  most  closely 
combined,  must  be  conceived  to  consist  of  two 
parts,  the  first  relating  to  John's  converts  in  ge- 
neral, the  second  to  the  twelve  disciples  at  Ephe- 
sits;  and  the  relative  pronoun  expressive  of  the 
latter  description  of  persons,  instead  of  being  con- 
joined to  the  preceding  clause,  must  be  referred 
to  an  antecedent,  removed  at  the  distance  of  three 
verses.  In  the  whole  compass  of  theological  con- 
troversy, it  would  be  difficult  to  assign  a  stronger 
instance  of  the  force  of  prejudice  in  obscuring  a 
plain  matter  of  fact;  nor  is  it  easy  to  conjecture 
what  could  be  the  temptation  to  do  such  violence 
to  the  language  of  scripture,  and  to  every  prin- 
ciple of  sober  criticism,  unless  it  were  the  horror 
which  certain  divines  have  conceived,  against  ev- 
ery thing  which  bore  the  shadow  of  countenancing 
anabaptistical  error.  The  ancient  commentators 
appear  to  have  felt  no  such  apprehensions,  but  to 
have  followed  without  scruple  the  natural  import 
of  the  passage.^ 

*  The  intelligent  reader  will  not  be  displeased  to  see  the 
opinion  of  St.  Austin  on  this  point.  It  is  almost  unnecessary 
to  say  that  it  is  decisively  in  our  favour;  nor  does  it  appear 
that  any  of  the  Fathers  entertained  a  doubt  on  the  subject. 
In  con  suiting- the  opinion  of  those  who  contended  that  sucjx 
as  were  reclaimed  from  heresy  ought  to  be  rebaptized,  hp 


42 

6.  Independently  of  this  decisive  fact,  whoever 
considers  the  extreme  popularity  of  John,  and  the 
multitude  of  all  descriptions  who  flocked  to  his 

represents  them  as  arguing,  that  if  the  converts  of  John 
required  to  be  rebaptized,  much  more  those  who  |were 
converted  from  heresy.  Since  they  who  had  the  baptism  of 
John  were  commanded  by  Paul  to  be  baptized,  not  having 
the  baptism  of  Christ,  why  do  you  extol  the  merit  of  John, 
and  reprobate  the  misery  of  heretics.  "  I  concede  to  you," 
says  St.  Austin,  "  the  misery  of  heretics:  but  heretics  give 
the  baptism  of  Christ,  which  John  did  not  give." 

The  comment  of  Chrysostom,  on  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, is  equally  decisive.  "He  (Paul)  did  not  say  to 
them  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  nothing,  but  that  it  was 
incomplete;  nor  does  he  say  this  simply,  or  without  having 
a  further  purpose  in  view,  but  that  he  might  teach  and  per- 
suade them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  which  they 
were,  and  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  laying  on  of 
Paul's  hands."  In  the  course  of  his  exposition,  he  solves 
the  difficulty  attending  the  supposition  of  disciples  at  Ephe- 
sus,  a  place  so  remote  from  Judaea,  having  received  bap- 
tism from  John.  "  Perhaps,"  says  he,  "they  were  then  on  a 
journey,  and  went  out,  and  were  baptized."  But  even  when 
they  were  baptized,  they  knew  not  Jesus.  Nor  does  he  ask 
them,  do  ye  believe  on  Jesus,  but  have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost?  He  knew  that  they  had  not  received  it,  but  is  de- 
sirous of  speaking  to  them,  that  on  learning  that  they  were 
destitute  of  it,  they  might  be  induced  to  seek  it.  A  little 
afterwards  he  adds,  "  Well  did  he  (Paul)  denominate  the 
"baptism  of  John,  the  baptism  of  repentance,  and  not  of  re- 
mission; instructing  and  persuading  them  that  it  was  desti- 


baptism,  will  find  it  difficult  to  believe,  that  there 
were  not  many  in  the  same  situation  with  these 
twelve  disciples.  The  annunciation  of  the  speedy 
appearance  of  their  Messiah  was  the  most  wel- 
come of  all  intelligence  to  the  Jewish  people,  and 
did  not  fail  for  a  time  to  produce  prodigious  effects. 
The  reader  is  requested  to  notice  the  terms  em- 
ployed to  describe  the  effects  of  John's  ministry, 
and  compare  them  with  the  language  of  the  his- 
torian, in  depicting  the  most  prosperous  state  of 
the  church.  "  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judaea,  and  all  the  coast  around  about  Jor- 
dan, and  were  baptized  in  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins."  Where  is  such  language  employed  to  re- 
present the  success  of  the  Apostles?  Their  con- 

tute  of  that  advantage:  but  the  effect  of  that  which  was 
given  afterwards,  was  remission." — Homily  in  loco,  Vol.  4. 
Etonas. — I  am  aware  that  very  learned  men  have  doubted 
the  authenticity  of  Chrysostom's  Commentary  on  the  Acts, 
on  account  of  the  supposed  inferiority  of  it  to  his  other  ex- 
pository works.  But  without  having  recourse  to  so  violent 
a  supposition,  its  inferiority,  should  it  be  admitted,  may  be 
easily  accounted  for  by  the  negligence,  ignorance,  or  inat- 
tention of  his  amanuensis;  supposing  (which  is  not  impro- 
bable) that  his  discourses  were  taken  from  his  lips.  From 
the  time  he  was  sixty  years  of  age,  he  permitted  his  dis- 
courses to  be  taken  down  in  short-hand,  just  as  he  delivered 
them.— -Eitseb.  Lib.  6,  c.  26. 


44 

verts  are  numerically  stated,  and  at  some  distance 
from  our  Lord's  ascension,  appear  to  have 
amounted  to  about  five  thousand,  while  a  great 
majority  of  the  nation  continued  impenitent  and 
incredulous.  We  read  of  no  party  formed  against 
the  Son  of  Zechariah,  no  persecution  raised 
against  his  followers;  and  such  was  the  reverence 
in  which  he  continued  to  be  held  after  his  death, 
that  the  scribes  and  pharisees,  those  determined 
enemies  to  the  gospel,  dared  not  avow  their  dis- 
belief of  his  mission,  because  all  the  people  con- 
sidered him  as  a  prophet.  The  historian  Josephus, 
who  is  generally  supposed  by  the  learned  to  have 
made  no  mention  of  our  Saviour,  bears  decisive 
testimony  to  his  merits,  and  imputes  the  misfor- 
tunes of  Herod  to  the  guilt  he  contracted  by  put- 
ting him  to  death.* 

From  these  considerations,  I  infer,  that  if  we 
suppose  the  converts  made  by  the  Apostles  to 
have  been  universally  baptized,  on  their  admis- 
sion into  the  church,  (a  fact  not  doubted  by  our 
opponents,)  multitudes  of  them  must  have  been 
in  the  same  situation  with  the  disciples  at  Ephe- 
sus.  How  is  it  possible  it  should  have  been  other- 
wise? When  the  number  of  his  converts  were  so 

*  Antiq.  Jud.  Lib,  8,  Colon,  1691. 


45 

prodigious,  when  the  submission  to  his  institute 
appears  to  have  been  almost  national,  when  of  so 
small  a  number  as  twelve,  two  at  least  .of  the 
Apostles  were  of  his  disciples,  who  can  doubt  for 
a  moment,  that  some  at  least  of  the  multitudes 
who  were  converted  on  or  after  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, consisted  of  such  as  had  previously  sub- 
mitted to  the  batism  of  John?  Is  it  possible  that 
the  ministry  of  the  forerunner,  and  of  the  Apostles 
of  our  Lord,  should  both  have  been  productive 
of  such  great  effects  among  the  same  people,  at 
the  distance  of  a  few  years,  without  operating  in 
a  single  instance  in  the  same  direction,  and  upon 
the  same  persons.  Amongst  the  converts  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  at  subsequent  periods,  there 
must  have  been  no  inconsiderable  number  who 
had  for  a  time  been  sufficiently  awakened  by  the 
ministry  of  John  to  comply  with  this  ordinance; 
yet  it  is  evident  from  the  narrative  in  the  Acts, 
as  well  as  admitted  by  our  opponents,  that  Peter 
enjoined  on  them  all,  without  exception,  the  duty 
of  being  immersed  in  the  name  of  Christ.  That 
such  a  description  of  persons  should  need  to  be 
converted  by  the  Apostles,  will  easily  be  con- 
ceived, if  we  allow  ourselves  to  reflect  on  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  times.  "  He  was  a  burning  and 
u  shining  light,"  said  our  Lord,  speaking  of  his 


46 

forerunner,  "  and  ye  were  willing  for  a  time  to  re- 
rejoice  in  his  light.5'  This  implies  that  their  at- 
tachment was  transient,  their  repentance  superfi- 
cial, and  that  the  greater  part  of  such  as  appeared 
for  awhile  most  determined  to  press  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  afterwards  sunk  into  a  state  of 
apathy.  The  singular  spectacle  of  a  prophet  aris- 
ing, after  a  long  cessation  of  prophetical  gifts,  his 
severe  sanctity,  his  bold  and  alarming  address, 
coinciding  with  the  general  expectation  of  the 
Messiah,  made  a  powerful  impression  on  the  spi- 
rits of  men,  and  disposed  them  to  pay  a  profound 
attention  to  his  ministry;  and  from  their  attach- 
ment to  every  thing  ritual  and  ceremonial,  they 
would  feel  no  hesitation  in  submitting  to  the  ce- 
remony he  enjoined.  But  when  the  kingdom 
which  they  eagerly  anticipated,  appeared  to  be  al- 
together of  a  spiritual  nature,  divested  of  secular 
pomp  and  grandeur,  when  the  sublimer  mysteries 
of  the  gospel  began  to  be  unfolded,  and  the  neces- 
sity inculcated  of  eating  the  flesh,  and  drinking 
the  blood,  of  the  Son  of  Man,  the  people  were 
offended,  and  even  of  the  professed  disciples  of 
our  Lord,  many  walked  no  more  with  him.  A 
general  declension  succeeded;  so  that  of  the  mul- 
titudes, who  once  appeared  to  be  much  moved  by 
his  ministry,  and  that  of  his  forerunner,  the  num- 


47 

ber  which  persevered  was  so  inconsiderable,  that 
all  that  could  be  mustered  to  witness  his  resur- 
rection amounted  to  little  more  than  five  hun- 
dred,^ a  number  which  may  be  considered  as 
constituting  the  whole  body  of  the  church,  till 
the  day  of  Pentecost. 

The  parable  of  the  house  forsaken  for  a  time  by 
an  evil  spirit,  swept  and  garnished,  to  which  he 
returned  with  seven  more  wicked  than  himself, 
it  is  generally  admitted,  was  designed  to  repre- 
sent this  temporary  reformation  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion, together  with  its  subsequent  apostacy.  The 
clay  of  Pentecost  changed  the  scene,  the  power  of 
the  ascended  Saviour  began  to  be  developed;  and 
three  thousand  were  converted  at  one  time.  Nor 
did  it  cease  here;  for  soon  after,  we  are  informed 
of  a  great  multitude  of  priests  who  became  obe- 
dient to  the  faith;  and  at  a  subsequent  period  St. 
James  reminds  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  of 
many  myriads  of  converted  Jews,  all  zealous  for 
the  law. 

Let  me  ask  again,  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that 
none  of  these  myriads  consisted  of  such  as  had 
been  baptized  by  John?  Were  they  all,  without  ex- 
ception, of  that  impious  class  which  uniformly 

*  I.  Corinthians,  xv.  6. 


48 

held  his  mission  in  contempt?  It  is  impossible  to 
suppose  it;  it  is  contradicted  by  the  express  testi- 
mony of  scripture,  which  affirms  two  of  the  Apos- 
tles to  have  been  his  disciples  and  companions.* 
But  if  such  as  professed  their  faith  in  Christ,  un- 
der the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  were  baptized 
on  that  profession,  without  any  consideration  of 
their  having  been  previously  immersed  by  John, 
or  not,  what  stronger  proof  can  be  desired,  that 
the  institutes  in  question  were  totally  distinct. 
Were  we  satisfied  with  an  argumentum  ad  homi- 
nem,  with  the  sort  of  proof  sufficient  to  silence 
our  opponents,  here  the  matter  might  safely  rest. 
But  independent  of  their  concession,  I  must  add 
that  it  is  manifest  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
Acts,  that  the  baptismal  rite  was  universally  ad- 
ministered to  the  converts  to  Christianity  subse- 
quent to  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Peter  said  unto 
them,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you:" 
it  is  added  almost  immediately,  "  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  words  were  baptized." 

It  will  possibly  be  asked,  if  the  rite  which  the 
forerunner  of  our  Lord  administered  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  a  Christian  institute,  to  what  dispen- 
sation are  we  to  assign  it,  since  it  is  manifestly 

*  John  i.  35,  36,  37. 


49 

no  part  of  the  economy  of  Moses.  We  reply,  that 
it  was  a  symbol  of  a  peculiar  dispensation,  which 
was  neither  entirely  legal  or  evangelical,  but  oc- 
cupied an  intermediate  station,  possessing  some- 
thing  of  the  character  and  attributes  of  both;  a 
kind  of  twilight,  equally  removed  from  the  obscu- 
rity  of  the  first,  and  the  splendour  of  the  last  and 
perfect  economy  of  religion*  The  law  and  the  pro- 
phets were  till  John;  his  mission  constituted  a 
distinct  era,  and  placed  the  nation  to  which  he  was 
sent,  in  circumstances  materially  different  from 
their  preceding  or  subsequent  state.  It  was  the 
era  of  preparation;  it  was  a  voice  which,  break- 
ing through  a  long  silence,  announced  the  imme- 
diate approach  of  the  desire  of  all  nations,  the 
messenger  of  the  covenant,  in  whom  they  delighted. 
In  announcing  this  event  as  at  hand,  and  estab- 
lishing a  right  unknown  to  the  law,  expressive  of 
that  purity  of  heart,  and  reformation  of  life, 
which  were  the  only  suitable  preparations  for  his 
reception,  he  stood  alone,  equally  severed  from  the 
choir  of  the  prophets,  and  the  company  of  the 
Apostles;  and  the  light  which  he  emitted,  though 
it  greatly  surpassed  every  preceding  illumination, 
was  of  short  duration,  being  soon  eclipsed  and 
extinguished  by  that  ineffable  effulgence,  before 
which  nothing  can  retain  its  splendour. 
5 


50 

The  wisdom  of  God  in  the  arrangement  of  suc- 
cessive dispensations,  seems  averse  to  sudden  and 
violent  innovations,  rarely  introducing  new  rites, 
without  incorporating  something  of  the  old.  As 
by  the  introduction  ;of  the  Mosaic,  the  simple 
ritual  of  the  patriarchal  dispensation  was  not  so 
properly  abolished,  as  amplified  and  extended  into 
a  regular  system  of  prefigurations  of  good  things 
to  come,  in  which  the  worship  by  sacrifices,  and 
the  distinction  of  animals  into  clean  and  unclean, 
re-appeared  under  a  new  form;  so  the  era  of  im- 
mediate preparation  was  distinguished  by  a  cere- 
mony not  entirely  new,  but  derived  from  the  pu- 
rifications of  the  law,  applied  to  a  special  pur- 
pose.^ Our  Lord  incorporated  the  same  rite  into 
his  religion,  newly  modified,  and  adapted  to  the 
peculiar  views  and  objects  of  the  Christian  econo- 
my, in  conjunction  with  another  positive  institu- 
tion, the  rudiments  of  which  are  perceptible  in  the 
passover.  It  seemed  suitable  to  his  wisdom,  by 
such  gentle  gradations  to  conduct  his  church  from 
an  infantine  state,  to  a  state  of  maturity  and  per- 
fection. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject,  which 

*  The  principal  part  of  these  consisted  in  bathing  the 
body  in  water. 


51 

has  perhaps  already  detained  the  reader  too 
long,  I  must  beg  leave  to  hazard  one  conjecture. 
Since  it  is  manifest  that  the  baptism  of  John  did 
not  supersede  the  Christian  ordinance,  they  being 
perfectly  distinct,  it  is  natural  to  inquire  who  bap- 
tized the  Apostles,  and  the  hundred  and  twenty 
disciples  assembled  with  them  at  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. My  deliberate  opinion  is,  that  in  the  chris- 
tian  sense  of  the  term,  they  were  not  baptized  at 
all.  From  the  total  silence  of  scripture,  and  from 
other  circumstances  which  might  be  adduced,  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  they  submitted  to  that  rite  after 
our  Saviour's  resurrection;  and  previous  to  it,  it 
has  been  sufficiently  proved  that  it  was  not  in 
force.  It  is  almost  certain  that  some,  probably 
most  of  them,  had  been  baptized  by  John,  but  for 
reasons  which  have  been  already  amply  assigned 
this  will  not  account  for  their  not  submitting  to 
the  Christian  ordinance.  The  true  account  seems 
to  be,  that  the  precept  of  baptism  had  no  retros- 
pective bearing;  and  that,  consequently,  its  obli- 
gation extended  only  to  such  as  were  converted 
to  Christianitv  subsequently  to  the  time  of  its  pro- 
mulgation. Such  as  had  professed  their  faith  in 
Christ  from  the  period  of  his  first  manifestation, 
could  not,  without  palpable  incongruity,  recom- 
mence that  profession,  which  would  have  been  to 


52 

cancel  and  annul  their  former  religious  preten- 
sions. With  what  propriety  could  the  Apostles 
of  the  Lord,  who  had  continued  with  him  in  his 
temptations,  place  themselves  on  a  level  with  that 
multitude,  which  however  penitent  at  present, 
had  recently  demanded  his  blood  with  clamorous 
importunity?  not  to  insist  that  they  had  already 
received  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which 
the  sacramental  use  of  water  was  but  a  figure. 
They  were  not  converted  to  the  Christian  religion 
subsequently  to  their  Lord's  resurrection,  nor  did 
the  avowal  of  their  attachment  to  the  Messiah, 
commence  from  that  period,  and  therefore  they 
were  not  comprehended  under  the  baptismal  law, 
which  was  propounded  for  the  regulation  of  the 
conduct  of  persons  in  essentially  different  circum- 
stances. When  St.  Paul  says,  as  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ,  his 
language  seems  to  intimate  that  there  were  a 
class  of  Christians,  to  whom  this  argument  did 
not  apply. * 

Having  proved,  I  trust  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  candid  reader,  that  baptism,  considered  as  a 
Christian  institution,  had  no  existence  during  the 
personal  ministry  of  our  Saviour,  the  plea  of  our 

*  Romans  vi.  3. 


53 

opponents,  founded  on  the  supposed  priority  of 
that  ordinance  to  the  Lord's  supper,  is  complete- 
ly overruled;  whatever  weight  it  might  possess, 
supposing  it  were  valid,  must  be  wholly  trans- 
ferred to  the  opposite  side,  and  it  must  be  ac- 
knowledged, either  that  they  have  reasoned  in- 
conclusively, or  have  produced  a  demonstration 
in  our  favour.  It  now  appears  that  the  original 
communicants  at  the  Lord's  table,  at  the  time  they 
partook  of  it,  were  with  respect  to  the  Christian 
baptism,  precisely  in  the  same  situation  with  the 
persons  they  exclude. 


SECTION  II. 

The  argument  for  strict  communion,  from  the  or- 
der of  words  in  the  apostolic  commission  consi- 
dered. 

THE  commission  which  the  Apostles  received 
after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  was  in  the  follow- 
ing words:— -u  All  power  is  given  to  me  in  hea- 
ven and  on  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them 
to  observe  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you/* 


54} 

From  baptism  being  mentioned  Jlrst  after  teach- 
ing,  it  is  urged  that  it  ought  invariably  to  be  ad- 
ministered immediately  after  effectual  instruction 
is  imparted,  and  consequently  before  an  approach 
to  the  Lord's  table.  Whence  it  is  concluded  that 
to  communicate  with  such  as  are  unbaptized,  is  a 
violation  of  divine  order.^ 


*  "  Teach,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "  is  the  high  commission, 
and  such  the  express  command  of  him  who  is  Lord  of  all, 
when  addressing1  those  who  are  called  to  preach  his  word, 
and  administer  his  institutions.  Hence  it  is  manifest  the 
commission  and  command  are  first  of  all  to  teach;  what 
then? — to  baptize,  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  supper?  I 
leave  common  sense  to  judge,  and  being  persuaded  that  she 
will  give  her  verdict  in  my  favour,  I  will  venture  to  add,  a 
limited  commission  implies  a  prohibition  of  such  things  as 
are  not  contained  in  it;  and  positive  laws  imply  their  nega- 
tive. 

For  instance,  when  God  commanded  Abraham  to  circum- 
cise all  his  males,  he  readily  concluded  that  neither  cir- 
cumcision, nor  any  rite  of  a  similar  nature,  was  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  his  females.  And  as  our  brethren  themselves 
maintain,  when  Christ  commanded  believers  should  be  bap- 
tized, without  mentioning  any  others,  he  tacitly  prohibited 
that  ordinance  from  being  administered  to  infants;  so  by 
parity  of  reason,  if  the  same  sovereign  Lord  commanded 
that  believers  should  be  baptized — baptized  immediately  af- 
ter they  made  a  profession  of  faith,  then  he^  must  intend 
that  the  administration  of  baptism  should  be  prior  to  a  re- 
ception of  the  Lord's  supper,  and,  consequently,  tacitly 


55 

,  It  may  assist  the  reader  to  form  a  judgment  of 
the  force  of  the  argument  adduced  on  this  occa- 
sion, if  we  reduce  it  to  the  following  syllogism:-— 

The  persons  who  are  to  be  taught  to  observe 
all  things  given  in  charge  to  the  Apostle,  are  the 
baptized  alone. 

But  the  Lord's  supper  is  one  of  these  things. 

Therefore  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper 
ought  to  be  enjoined  on  the  baptized  alone. 

Here  it  is  obvious  that  the  conclusion  rests  en- 
tirely upon  this  principle,  that  nothing  which  the 
Apostles  were  commissioned  to  enjoin  on  be- 
lievers, is  to  be  recommended  to  the  attention  of 
persons  not  baptized;  since,  as  far  as  this  argu- 
ment is  concerned,  the  observation  of  the  Lord's 
supper  is  supposed  not  to  belong  to  them,  merely 
because  it  forms  a  part  of  those  precepts.  It  is 
obvious,  if  the  reasoning  of  our  opponents  be  va- 
lid, it  militates  irresistibly  against  the  inculcation 
of  every  branch  of  Christian  duty,  on  persons  who 
in  their  judgment  have  not  partaken  of  the  bap- 
tismal sacrament:  it  excludes  them  not  merely 
from  the  Lord's  supper,  but  from  every  species 
of  instruction  appropriate  to  Christians;  nor  can 

prohibits  every  unbaptized  person  having  communion  at  his 
table."— Booth's  Apology,  page  34. 


56 

they  exhort  Psedobaptists  to  walk  worthy  of  their 
high  calling,  to  adorn  their  Christian  profession, 
to  cultivate  brotherly  love,  or  to  the  performance 
of  any  duty  resulting  from  their  actual  relation  to 
Christ,  without  a  palpable  violation  of  their  own 
principles.  In  all  such  instances,  they  would  be 
teaching  them  to  observe  injunctions  which  Christ 
gave  in  charge  to  the  Apostles  for  the  regulation 
of  Christian  conduct,  while  they  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  repel  them  from  the  sacrament,  merely  on 
account  of  its  forming  a  part  of  those  injunctions. 
Nor  can  they  avoid  the  force  of  this  reasoning, 
by  objecting  that  though  it  may  be  their  duty  to 
enjoin  on  unbaptized  believers  some  parts  of  the 
mind  of  Christ  respecting  the  conduct  of  his 
mystical  members,  it  will  not  follow  that  they  are 
to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table;  and  that  their 
meaning  is,  that  it  is  only  subsequently  to  bap- 
tism, that  all  things  ought  to  be  enforced  on  the 
consciences  of  Christians.  For  if  it  be  once  ad- 
mitted that  the  clause  on  which  so  much  stress  is 
laid,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  so  as  absolutely  to 
exclude  unbaptized  Christians  from  the  whole  of 
its  import,  to  what  purpose  is  it  alleged  against 
their  admission  to  the  eucharist?  or  how  does  it 
appear  that  this  may  not  be  one  of  the  parts  in 
which  they  are  comprehended? 


57 

When  the  advocates  for  strict  communion  re- 
mind us  of  the  order  in  which  the  two  positive 
institutions  of  Christianity  are  enjoined,  they  ap- 
pear to  assume  it  for  granted  that  we  are  desirous 
of  inverting  that  order,  and  that  we  are  contend- 
ing for  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  previous 
to  baptism,  in  the  case  of  a  clear  comprehension 
of  the  nature  and  obligation  of  each.  We  plead 
for  nothing  of  the  kind.  Supposing  a  convert  to 
Christianity  convinced  of  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, in  the  light  in  which  we  contemplate  it,  we 
should  urge  his  obligation  to  comply  with  it,  pre- 
vious to  his  reception  of  the  sacrament,  with  as 
little  hesitation  as  the  most  rigid  of  our  opponents; 
nor  should  we  be  more  disposed  than  themselves 
to  countenance  a  neglect  of  known  duty,  or  a 
wanton  inversion  of  the  order  of  Christian  ap- 
pointments. Whether  in  such  circumstances  the 
attention  of  a  candidate  for  Christian  communion 
should  first  be  directed  to  baptism,  is  not  the 
question  at  issue;  but  what  conduct  ought  to  be 
maintained  towards  sincere  Christians,  who  after 
serious  examination  profess  their  conviction  of 
being  baptized  already,  or  who  in  any  manner 
whatever,  are  withheld  by  motives  purely  consci- 
entious, from  complying  with  what  we  conceive 
to  be  a  Christian  ordinance.  To  justify  the  ex- 


58 

elusion  of  such  from  the  Lord's  table,  it  is  not 
sufficient  to  allege  the  proscribed  order  of  the  in- 
stitutions; it  is  necessary  also  to  evince  such  a 
dependence  of  one  upon  the  other,  that  a  neglect 
of  the  first  from  involuntary  mistake,  annuls  the 
obligation  of  the  second.  Let  this  dependence 
be  once  clearly  pointed  out,  and  we  give  up  the 
cause.  It  has  been  asserted,  indeed,  with  much 
confidence,  that  we  have  the  same  authority  for 
confining  our  communion  to  baptized  persons,  as 
the  ancient  Jews  for  admitting  none  but  such  as 
had  been  circumcised,  to  the  passover:  a  simple 
recital,  however,  of  the  words  of  the  law,  with 
respect  to  that  ancient  rite,  will  be  sufficient  to 
demonstrate  the  contrary:  "  When  a  stranger 
shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep  his  pass- 
over  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised, 
and  then  let  him  come  and  keep  it,  and  he  shall 
be  as  one  that  is  born  in  the  land;  for  no  uncir- 
cumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof."  But  where, 
let  me  ask,  is  it  asserted  in  the  New  Testament 
that  no  unbaptized  person  shall  partake  of  the  eu- 
charist?*  So  far  from  this,  it  has  been,  I  trust, 

*  "  Was  it  the  duty,  think  you,  of  an  ancient  Israelite  to 
worship  at  the  sanctuary,  or  to  partake  of  the  paschal  feast, 
before  he  was  circumcised?  Or  was  it  the  duty  of  the  Jewish 
priests  to  burn  incense  in  the  holy  place,  before  they  offer- 


59 

satisfactorily  shewn  that  of  the  original  commu- 
nicants at  its  first  institution,  not  one  was  thus 
qualified. 

I  presume  it  will  be  acknowledged  that  the 
Jewish  law  was  so  clear  and  express  in  insisting 
on  circumcision  as  a  necessary  preparation  for 
partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb  that  none  could 
mistake  it,  or  approach  that  feast  in  an  uncircum- 
cised  state,  without  being  guilty  of  wilful  impiety; 
and  if  it  is  intended  to  insinuate  the  same  charge 
against  Psedobaptists,  let  it  be  alleged  without 
disguise,  that  it  may  be  fairly  met  and  refuted. 
But  if  it  be  acknowledged  that  nothing  but  such 
involuntary  mistakes,  such  unintentional  errors 
as  are  incident  to  some  of  the  wisest  and  best  of 
men,  are  imputable  in  the  present  instance,  we 
are  at  a  loss  to  conceive  upon  what  principle  they 
are  compared  to  wilful  prevarication  and  rebel- 
lion. The  degree  of  blame  which  attaches  to  the 
conduct  of  those  who  mistake  the  will  of  Christ 
with  respect  to  the  sacramental  use  of  water,  we 
shall  not  pretend  to  determine;  but  we  feel  no  he- 
sitation in  affirming,  that  the  practice  of  compar- 
ing it  to  a  presumptuous  violation  and  contempt 

ed  the  morning  or  evening-  service?  The  appointments  of 
God  must  be  administered  in  his  own  way,  and  in  that  or- 
der which  he  has  fixed."— JB oath's  Jlpology,  page  143. 


60 

of  divine  law,  is  equally  repugnant  to  the  dictates 
of  propriety  and  of  candour.  Among  the  innu- 
merable descendants  of  Abraham,  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  find  one  since  their  departure  from  Egypt, 
who  has  doubted  of  the  obligation  of  circumci- 
sion, of  the  proper  subjects  of  that  rite,  or  of  its 
being  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Mosaic  covenant.  Among  Chris- 
tians, on  the  contrary,  of  unexceptionable  charac- 
ter and  exalted  piety,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
subject,  the  mode,  and  the  perpetuity  of  baptism, 
have  each  supplied  occasion  for  controversy; 
which  can  only  be  ascribed  to  the  minute  parti- 
cularity with  which  the  ceremonies  of  the  law 
were  enjoined,  compared  to  the  concise  brevity 
which  characterises  the  history  of  evangelical  in- 
stitutes. We  are  far,  however,  from  insinuating 
a  doubt  on  the  obligation  of  believers  to  submit  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  or  of  its  being  exclu- 
sively appropriated  to  such;  but  we  affirm  that  in 
no  part  of  scripture  is  it  inculcated  as  a  prepara- 
tive to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  that  this  view  of  it 
is  a  mere  fiction  of  the  imagination. 

When  duties  are  enjoined  in  a  certain  series, 
each  of  them  on  the  authority  in  which  they  ori- 
ginate becomes  obligatory;  nor  are  we  excused 
from  performing  those  which  stand  later  in  the 


61 

series,  on  account  of  our  having  from  misconcep- 
tion of  their  meaning,  or  from  any  other  cause, 
omitted  the  first.  To  exemplify  this  by  a  familiar 
instance:  It  will  be  admitted  that  the  law  of  na- 
ture enforces  the  following  duties,  resulting  from 
the  relation  of  children  to  their  parents:  first  to 
yield  implicit  obedience  in  the  state  of  nonage: 
next,  in  maturer  age  to  pay  respectful  deference 
to  their  advice,  and  a  prompt  attention  to  their 
wants;  lastly,  after  they  are  deceased,  affection- 
ately to  cherish  their  memory,  and  defend  their 
good  name.  None  will  deny  that  each  of  these 
branches  of  conduct  is  obligatory,  and  that  this  is 
the  order  in  which  they  are  recommended  to 
our  attention.  But  will  it  be  contended  that  he  who 
has  neglected  the  first,  ought  not  to  perform  the 
second;  or  that  he  who  has  failed  in  the  second, 
ought  to  omit  the  third?  To  such  an  absurd  pre- 
tence we  should  immediately  reply  that  they  are 
all  independently  obligatory,  as  respective  dic- 
tates of  the  divine  will;  and  that  for  him  who  has 
violated  one  of  them  to  urge  his  past  delinquen- 
cies as  an  apology  for  the  present,  would  only 
prove  an  aggravation  of  his  guilt.  It  is  true  that 
some  duties  are  so  situated,  as  parts  or  appenda- 
ges of  preceding  ones,  that  their  obligation  may 
be  said  to  result  from  them;  as  for  example,  the 
6 


62 

duty  of  confessing  Christ  before  men  arises  from 
the  previous  duty  of  believing  on  him,  and  that 
of  joining  a  Christian  society,  presupposes  the 
obligation  of  becoming  a  Christian.  In  such  cases, 
however,  as  the  connection  betwixt  the  respec- 
tive branches  of  practice  is  founded  on  the  nature 
of  things,  it  is  easily  perceived,  and  rarely,  if 
ever,  the  subject  of  controversy.  In  a  series  of 
positive  precepts,  this  principle  has  no  place;  as 
they  originate  merely  in  arbitrary  appointment, 
their  mutual  relation  can  only  be  the  result  of 
clear  and  express  command,  and  as  reason  could 
never  have  discovered  their  obligation,  so  it  is  as 
little  able  to  ascertain  their  intrinsic  connection 
and  dependence,  which  wherever  it  subsists,  must 
be  the  effect  of  the  same  positive  prescription 
which  gave  them  birth.  It  cannot  be  pretended 
that  an  unbaptized  believer  is  intrinsically  dis- 
qualified for  a  suitable  attendance  at  the  Lord's 
table,  or  that  it  is  so  essentially  connected  with 
baptism,  as  to  render  the  act  of  communion,  in 
itself,  absurd  or  improper.  The  communion  has 
no  retrospective  reference  to  baptism,  nor  is  bap- 
tism an  anticipation  of  communion.  Enjoined  at 
different  times,  and  appointed  for  different  pur- 
poses, they  are  capable,  without  the  least  incon- 
venience, of  being  contemplated  apart;  and  on  no 


63 

occasion,  are  they  mentioned  in  such  a  connec- 
tion, as  to  imply,  much  less  to  assert,  that  the  one 
is  enjoined  with  a  view  to  the  other.  Such  a  con- 
nection, we  acknowledge,  subsisted  betwixt  the 
rites  of  circumcision  and  the  passover;  and  all  we 
demand  of  the  advocates  of  strict  communion  is, 
that  instead  of  amusing  us  with  fanciful  analogies 
drawn  from  an  antiquated  law,  they  would  point 
us  to  some  clause  in  the  New  Testament  which 
asserts  a  similar  relation  betwixt  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper.  But  here,  where  the  very  hinge 
of  the  controversy  turns,  the  scriptures  are  silent. 
They  direct  us  to  be  baptized,  and  they  direct  us 
to  commemorate  the  Saviour's  death,  but  not  a 
syllable  do  they  utter  to  inform  us  of  the  insepa- 
rable connection  betwixt  these  two  ordinances. 
This  deficiency  is  ill  supplied  by  fervid  declama- 
tion on  the  perspicuity  of  our  Lord's  commission, 
and  the  inexcusable  inattention  or  prejudice  which 
has  led  to  a  misconception  of  its  meaning;  for  let 
the  persons  whom  these  charges  may  concern  be 
as  guilty  as  they  may,  since  they  are  still  acknow- 
ledged to  be  Christians,  the  question  returns,  why- 
are  they  debarred  from  the  communion  of  saints, 
and  while  entitled  to  all  other  spiritual  privileges, 
supposed  to  be  incapacitated  from  partaking  of 
the  symbols  of  a  crucified  Saviour?  How  came 


64 

the  deteriorating  effects  of  their  error  respecting 
baptism,  to  affect  them  but  in  one  point,  that  of 
their  eligibility  as  candidates  for  communion, 
without  spreading  farther?  That  it  just  amounts 
to  a  forfeiture  of  this  privilege,  and  of  no  other, 
is  a  conclusion  to  which,  as  it  is  certain  it  cannot 
be  established  by  reason,  we  ask  to  be  conducted 
by  revelation;  and  we  intreat  our  opponents  for 
information  on  that  head  again  and  again,  but  in- 
treat in  vain. 

Were  we  to  judge  from  the  ardent  attachment 
which  the  abetters  of  strict  communion,  on  all  oc- 
casions, profess  to  the  positive  institutes  of  the 
gospel,  we  should  suppose  that  the  object  of  their 
efforts  was  to  raise  them  to  their  just  estimation, 
and  to  rescue  them  from  desuetude  and  neglect. 
We  should  conjecture  that  they  arose  from  a  so- 
licitude to  revive  certain  practices  which  had  pre- 
vailed in  the  purest  ages  of  the  church,  but  were 
afterwards  laid  aside,  just  as  the  ordinance  of 
preaching  was,  during  the  triumph  of  the  papacy, 
almost  consigned  to  oblivion;  and  that  the  conse- 
quence of  complying  with  their  suggestions,  would 
be  a  more  complete  exhibition  of  Christianity  in 
all  its  parts.  But  their  zeal  operates  in  quite  a 
contrary  direction.  The  success  of  their  scheme 
tends  not  to  extend  the  practice  of  baptism,  no, 


65 

not  in  a  single  instance,  but  merely  to  exclude 
the  Lord's  supper.  Leaving  the  former  appoint- 
ment unaltered  and  untouched,  it  merely  pro- 
poses to  abolish  the  latter;  and  as  far  as  it  is  prac- 
ticable, to  lay  the  Christian  world  under  an  inter- 
dict. The  real  state  of  the  case  is  as  follows: — 
On  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  particularly  whe- 
ther it  is  applicable  to  infants,  opinions  are  divi- 
ded, and  the  majority  have  come,  as  we  conceive, 
to  an  erroneous  conclusion.  How  do  they  pro- 
pose to  remedy  this  evil?  By  throwing  all  manner 
of  obstacles  in  the  way  of  an  approach  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  as  far  as  their  power  extends,  ren- 
dering it  impracticable  by  clogging  it  with  a  con- 
dition at  which  conscience  revolts.  They  propose 
to  punish  men  for  the  involuntary  neglect  of  one 
ordinance,  by  compelling  them  to  abandon  the 
other;  and  because  they  are  uneasy  at  perceiving 
them  perform  but  one  half  of  their  duty,  oblige 
them,  as  far  as  lies  in  their  power,  to  ornit  the 
whole.  I  must  confess  I  feel  no  partiality  for 
those  violent  remedies,  which  under  the  pretence 
of  reforming,  destroy;  or  for  that  passion  for  or- 
der which  would  rather  witness  the  entire  desola- 
tion of  the  sanctuary,  than  a  defalcation  of  its 
rites;  and  in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  sophistry,  I 
must  he  permitted  to  believe  that  our  Lord's  ex- 
6* 


66 

press  injunction  on  his  followers,  "  do  this  in  re- 
membrance of  me,"  is  a  better  reason  for  the 
celebration  of  the  communion  than  can  be  addu- 
ced for  its  neglect. 


SECTION  in. 

The  argument  from  apostolical  precedent,  and  from 
the  different  significations  of  the  two  institu- 
tions, considered. 

IN  vindication  of  their  practice,  our  oppo- 
nents are  wont  to  urge  the  order  of  administra- 
tion in  the  primitive  and  apostolic  practice.  They 
remind  us  that  the  members  of  the  primitive 
church  were  universally  baptized;  that  if  we  ac- 
knowledge its  constitution  in  that  respect  to  be 
expressive  of  the  mind  of  Christ,  we  are  bound 
to  follow  that  precedent,  and  that  to  deviate  from 
it  in  this  particular,  is  virtually  to  impeach  either 
the  wisdom  of  our  Lord,  or  the  fidelity  of  his 
Apostles.* 

*  "  The  order  of  administration,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "  in 
the  primitive  and  apostolic  practice,  now  demands  our  no- 
tice. That  the  Apostles  when  endued  with  power  from  on 
high,  understood  our  Lord  in  the  sense  for  which  we 


67 

With  respect  to  the  universality  of  the  prac- 
tice of  Christian  baptism,  having  already  stated 
our  views,  it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  what  has 
already  been  advanced,  or  to  recapitulate  the 
reasons  on  which  we  found  our  opinion,  that  it  was 
not  extended  to  such  as  were  converted  previous 
to  the  Lord's  resurrection.  Subsequently  to  that 
period,  we  admit,  without  hesitation,  that  the 
converts  to  the  Christian  faith  submitted  to  that 
ordinance,  prior  to  their  reception  into  the  chris- 
tian  church.  As  little  are  we  disposed  to  deny 
that  it  is  at  present  the  duty  of  the  sincere  be- 
liever to  follow  their  example,  and  that  supposing 
him  to  be  clearly  convinced  of  the  nature  and  im- 
port of  baptism,  he  would  be  guilty  of  a  criminal 
irregularity  who  neglected  to  attend  to  it,  pre- 
vious to  his  entering  into  Christian  fellowship. 

plead,  and  practised  accordingly,  is  quite  evident.  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were,  what?  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  table?  No,  but  baptized: — JLnd  the  same  day 
there  ivere  added  to  them  about  three  thousand  souls;  and 
they  continued  stedfast  in  the  .Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayer.  If  our  brethren  do 
not  look  upon  the  apostolic  precedent  as  expressive  of  the 
mind  of  Christ,  and  as  a  pattern  for  future  imitation,  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  they  must  consider  the  Apostles  as 
either  ignorant  of  our  Lord's  will,  or  as  unfaithful  in  the 
performance  of  it." — Booth's  Jlpology,  page  47,  48. 


68 

On  the  obligation  of  both  the  positive  rites  en- 
joined in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  prior  claim 
of  baptism  to  the  attention  of  such  as  are  pro- 
perly enlightened  on  the  subject,  we  have  no  dis- 
pute. All  we  contend  for  is,  that  they  do  not  so 
depend  one  upon  the  other,  that  the  conscientious 
omission  of  the  first,  forfeits  the  privilege,  or 
cancels  the  duty,  of  observing  the  second;  nor  are 
we  able  to  perceive  that  what  in  the  present  in- 
stance is  styled  apostolic  precedent,  at  all  decides 
the  question.  To  attempt  to  determine  under 
what  circumstances  the  highest  precedent  pos- 
sessess  the  form  of  law,  involves  a  difficult  and 
delicate  inquiry;  for  while  it  is  acknowledged 
that  much  deference  is  due  to  primitive  example, 
there  were  certain  usages  in  apostolical  times, 
which  few  would  attempt  to  revive.  There  is  one 
general  rule,  however,  applicable  to  the  subject, 
which  is,  that  no  matter  of  fact  is  entitled  to  be 
considered  as  an  authoritative  precedent,  which 
necessarily  arose  out  of  existing  circumstances,  so 
that  in  the  then  present  state  of  things,  it  could 
not  fail  to  have  occurred.  The  foundation  of  this 
rule  is  obvious.  Nothing  is  of  the  nature  of  law, 
but  what  emanates  from  the  will  of  the  legisla- 
tor; but  when  a  particular  fact,  recorded  in  an 
historical  narration,  is  so  situated,  that  the  con- 


69 

trary  would  have  appeared  incongruous  or  absurd; 
in  other  words,  when  it  could  not  fail  to  be  the  re- 
sult of  previous  occurrences,  such  a  fact  is  desti- 
tute of  the  essential  characteristic  of  a  law;  it  has 
no  apparent  dependence  upon  a  superior  will. 

Hence  many  practices  occur  in  the  history  of 
the  apostolic  transactions,  which  it  is  universally 
admitted  we  are  not  obliged  to  imitate.  It  is  an 
unquestionable  fact,  that  the  eucharist  was  first 
celebrated  with  unleavened  bread,  on  the  even- 
ing, in  an  upper  room,  and  to  the  Jews  onlv;  but 
as  we  distinctly  perceive  that  these  particulars 
originated  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the 
time,  we  are  far  from  considering  them  as  bind- 
ing. On  the  same  principle  we  account  for  the 
members  of  the  primitive  church  consisting  only 
of  such  as  were  baptized,  without  erecting  that 
circumstance  into  an  invariable  rule  of  action. 
When  we  recollect  that  no  error  or  mistake  sub- 
sisted, or  could  subsist,  among  Christians  at  that 
period,  we  are  compelled  to  regard  it  as  the  ne- 
cessary consequence  of  the  state  of  opinions  then 
prevalent.  While  all  the  faithful  concurred  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  law  which  enjoins  it, 
how  is  it  possible  to  suppose  it  neglected?  or 
whence  could  re-baptized  communicants  have 
been  drawn?  Is  this  circumstance,  to  which  so 


70 

much  importance  is  attached,  of  such  a  nature 
that  no  account  can  be  given  of  it,  but  upon  the 
principle  of  our  opponents?  or  is  it  the  necessary 
consequence  of  the  then  actual  situation  of  the 
church?  If  the  latter  be  admitted,  it  ceases  for 
the  reason  already  alleged,  to  be  a  precedent,  or 
a  rule  for  the  direction  of  future  times. 

We  are  willing  to  go  a  step  further,  and  to  ac- 
knowledge that  he  who,  convinced  of  the  divine 
origin  of  Christianity  by  the  ministry  of  the  Apos- 
tles, had  refused  to  be  baptized,  would  at  that  pe- 
riod have  been  justly  debarred  from  receiving  the 
sacramental  elements.  While  the  Apostles  were 
yet  living,  and  daily  exemplifying  the  import  of 
their  commission  before  the  eyes  of  the  people, 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  pretend  igno- 
rance, nor  could  that  sincerity  fail  to  be  suspect- 
ed, which  was  not  accompanied  with  an  implicit 
submission  to  their  authority. 

"He  that  receiveth  you,"  said  our  Lord,  "re- 
eeiveth  me;  he  that  rejecteth  you,  rejecteth  me." 
Agreeably  to  which  we  find  that  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  did  not  scruple  to  use  the  fol- 
lowing language: — u  By  this  ye  know  the  spirit  of 
truth  and  the  spirit  of  error;  he  that  is  of  God 
heareth  us;  he  that  is  not  of  God  heareth  not 
us."  Such  a  conduct  was  perfectly  proper.  As 


71 

there  can  be  but  two  guides  in  religion,  reason 
and  authority,  and  every  man  must  form  his  be- 
lief, either  by  following  the  light  of  his  own  mind, 
or  the  information  and  instruction  he  derives  from 
others,  so  it  is  equally  evident  it  is  only  by  the 
last  of  these  methods  that  the  benefit  of  a  new 
revelation  can  be  diffused.     Either  we  must  sup- 
pose an  infinite  multitude  of  miracles  performed 
on  the  minds  of  individuals  to  convey  the  know- 
ledge of  supernatural  truths,  or  that  one  or  more 
are  thus  preternaturally  enlightened,  and  invested 
with  a  commission  to  speak  in  the  name  of  God 
to  others;   endowed  at  the  same  time  with  such 
peculiar  powers,  such  a  controul  over  nature,  or 
such  a  foresight  of  future  contingencies  as  shall 
be  sufficient  to  accredit  and  establish  his  mission. 
He  who  refuses  to  submit  to  the  'guidance  of 
persons   thus  attested  and  accredited,   must  be 
considered  as  virtually  renouncing  the  revelation 
imparted,  and  as  the  necessary  consequence,  for- 
feiting his  interest  in  its  blessings.      On   these 
grounds  it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive,  that  a  pri- 
mitive convert,  or  rather  pretended  convert,  who 
without   doubting   that    baptism,  in  the  way  in 
which  we  practise  it,  formed  a  part  of  the  apos- 
tolic commission,  had  refused  compliance,  would 
have  been  deemed  unworthy  Christian  commu- 


72 

nion,  not  on  account  of  any  specific  connection 
betwixt  the  two  ordinances,  but  on  account  of 
his  evincing  a  spirit  totally  repugnant  to  the  mind 
of  Christ.  By  rejecting  the  only  authority  estab- 
lished upon  earth  for  the  direction  of  conscience, 
and  the  termination  of  doubts  and  controversies, 
he  would,  undoubtedly,  have  been  repelled  as  a 
contumacious  schismatic.  But  what  imaginable 
resemblance  is  there  betwixt  such  a  mode  of 
procedure,  and  the  conduct  of  our  Pasdobaptist 
brethren,  who  oppose  no  legitimate  authority, 
impeach  no  part  of  the  apostolic  testimony,  but 
mistaking  (in  our  judgment  at  least)  its  import 
in  one  particular,  decline  a  practice  which  many 
of  them  would  be  the  first  to  comply  with,  were 
they  once  convinced  it  was  the  dictate  of  duty, 
and  the  will  of  heaven.  In  the  one  case  we  per- 
ceive open  rebellion,  in  the  other,  involuntary 
error:  in  the  one,  the  pride  which  opposes  itself 
to  the  dictates  of  inspired  wisdom,  in  the  other, 
a  specimen  (an  humbling  one  it  is  true)  of  that 
infirmity,  in  consequence  of  which  we  all  see  but 
in  part,  and  know  but  in  part.  Since  whatever 
degree  of  prejudice  or  inattention  we  may  be  dis- 
posed to  impute  to  the  abettors  of  infant  sprink- 
ling, the  principles  on  which  they  proceed  are 
essentially  different  from  those  which  could  alone 


73 

have  occasioned  the  introduction  of  that  practice 
in  apostolic  times,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive 
the  propriety  of  classing  them  together,  or  of  ani- 
madverting upon  them  with  equal  severity.  The 
Apostles  would  have  repelled  from  their  commu- 
nion men,  who  while  they  professed  to  be  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  refused  submission  to  his  in- 
spired messengers;  in  other  words,  they  would 
have  rejected  some  of  the  worst  of  men:  there- 
fore, say  our  opponents,  we  feel  ourselves  justi- 
fied in  excluding  multitudes  whom  we  acknow- 
ledge to  be  the  best.  I  am  at  a  loss  whether 
most  to  admire  the  logic,  the  equity,  or  the  mo- 
desty of  such  a  conclusion. 

Besides,  this  reasoning  from  precedent  is  of  so 
flexible  a  nature  that  it  may  with  equal  ease  be 
employed  in  a  contrary  direction,  and  be  turned 
to  the  annoyance  of  our  opponents.  As  it  is  an 
acknowledged  fact,  that  in  primitive  times  all  the 
faithful  were  admitted  to  an  equality  of  partici- 
pation in  every  Christian  privilege;  to  repel  the 
great  majority  of  them  on  account  of  an  error, 
acknowledged  not  to  be  fundamental,  is  at  once  a 
wide  departure  from  the  apostolic  example,  and 
a  palpable  contradiction  to  the  very  words  em- 
ployed in  its  first  institution;  "  drink  ye  all  of  it; 
do  this  in  remembrance  of  mex."  words  addressed, 
7 


74 

as  has  already  been  proved,  to  persons  who  had 
not  received  Christian  baptism.     If  it  be  replied, 
that  though  all  Christians  originally  communi- 
cated, yet  from  the  period  of  the  Pentecost,  at 
least,  they  were  all  previously  initiated  by  im- 
mersion, the  inquiry  returns,  were  they  baptized 
on  account  of  the  necessary  connection  of  that 
appointment  with  the  eucharist,  or  purely  in  de- 
ference to  the  apostolic  injunction?  To  assert  the 
former  would  be  palpably  begging  the  question; 
and  if  the  latter  is  affirmed,  we  reply,  that  as  they 
practised  as  they  did,  in  deference  to  the  will  of 
God,  so  our  Paedobaptist  brethren,  in  declining  the 
practice  which  we  adopt,  regulate  their  conduct 
by  the  same  principle. 

The  shew  of  conformity  to  apostolic  precedent 
is  with  the  advocates  of  strict  communion,  and 
nothing  more;  the  substance  and  reality  are  with 
us.  Their  conformity  is  to  the  letter,  ours  to  the 
spirit;  theirs  circumstantial  and  incidental,  ours 
radical  and  essential.  In  withholding  the  signs 
from  those  who  are  in  possession  of  the  thing 
signified,  in  refusing  to  communicate  the  symbols 
of  the  great  sacrifice  to  those  who  are  equally 
with  themselves  sprinkled  by  its  blood  and 
sharers  of  its  efficacy,  in  dividing  the  regenerate 
into  two  classes,  believers  and  communicants, 


75 

and  confining  the  Church  to  the  narrow  limits  of 
a  sect,  they  have  violated  more  maxims  of  anti- 
quity, and  receded  further  from  the  example  of 
the  Apostles,  than  any  class  of  Christians  on  re- 
cord. 

We  live  in  a  mutable  world,  and  the  diversity 
of  sentiment  which  has  arisen  in  the  Christian 
church  on   the    subject  of  baptism,   has  placed 
things  in  a  new  situation,  and  has  given  birth  to 
a  case  which  can  be  determined  only  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  general  principles  of  the  gospel,  and 
to  those  injunctions  in  particular,  which  are  de- 
signed  to   regulate   the  conduct  of  Christians, 
whose  judgment  in  points  of  secondary  moment 
differ.    These  we  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss 
in  another  part  of  this  treatise,  where  it  will,  we 
trust,  be  satisfactorily  shewn  that  we  are  furnish- 
ed with  a  clue  fully  sufficient  for  our  guidance: 
and  when  we  consider  the  impossibility  of  com- 
prehending in  any  code  whatever,  every  possible 
combination  of  future  occurrences  and  events,  we 
shall  perceive  the  necessity  of  having  recourse  to 
those  large  and  comprehensive  maxims,  which 
the  prospective  wisdom  of  the  Father  of  lights, 
and   the   Author  of  revelation,   has  abundantly 
supplied. 

Were  it  not  that  more  are  capable  of  number- 


76 

ing  arguments,  than  of  weighing  them,  the  men- 
tion of  the  following  might  be  omitted.  The  sig- 
nification of  the  two  positive  ordinances  of  the 
gospel  are  urged  in  proof  of  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism preceding  the  Lord's  supper.  The  first,  we 
are  reminded  by  our  opponents,  is  styled  by  theo- 
logians the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  or  of  ini- 
tiation; the  second,  the  sacrament  of  nutrition.^ 
To  argue  from  metaphors  is  rarely  a  conclusive 
mode  of  reasoning,  but  if  it  were,  the  regenerate 
state  of  our  Psedobaptist  brethren  would  surely 
afford  a  much  better  reason  for  admitting  them 
to  the  sacrament  of  nutrition,  than  their  miscon- 
ception of  a  particular  command  for  prohibiting 
them,  unless  we  chuse  to  affirm  that  the  shadow 
is  of  more  importance  than  the  substance,  or  that 

*  "  In  submitting1  to  baptism,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "  we- 
ave an  emblem  of  our  union  and  communion  with  Jesus 
Christ,  as  our  great  representative,  in  his  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection.  And  as  in  baptism  we  profess  to  have  re- 
newed spiritual  life;  so  in  communicating  at  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble, we  have  the  emblem  of  that  heavenly  food  by  which 
we  live,  by  which  we  grow,  and  by  virtue  of  which  we  hope 
to  live  for  ever.  Hence  theological  writers  have  often  call- 
ed baptism  the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  or  of  initiation, 
and  the  Lord's  supper  the  sacrament  of  nutrition." — Booth** 
Apology. 


77 

the   sacrament  of  nutrition  is  not   intended  to 
nourish. 

Their  actual  possession  of  spiritual  life,  in  con- 
sequence of  their  union  to  the  head  of  the  Church, 
necessarily  implies  a  title  to  every  Christian  pri- 
vilege, by  which  such  a  life  is  cherished  and 
maintained,  unless  there  were  an  express  prohi- 
bition to  the  contrary;  nor  is  it  to  be  doubted  that 
the  acknowledgment  of  Psedobaptists,  as  Chris- 
tians, implies  a  competence  to  enter  into  the  full 
import  of  the  rites  commemorative  of  our  Lord's 
death  and  passion.  To  consider  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, however,  as  a  mere  commemoration  of  that 
event,  is  to  entertain  a  very  inadequate  view  of 
it.  If  we  credit  St.  Paul,  it  is  also  a  federal  rtte% 
in  which  in  token  of  our  reconciliation  with  God, 
we  eat  and  drink  in  his  presence:  it  is  a  feast  upon 
a  sacrifice,  by  which  we  become  partakers  at  the 
altar,  not  less  really,  though  in  a  manner  more 
elevated  and  spiritual,  than  those  who  under  the 
ancient  economy  presented  their  offerings  in  the 
temple.  In  this  ordinance,  the  cup  is  a  spiritual 
participation  of  the  blood,  the  bread  of  the  body 
of  the  crucified  Saviour.*  and  as  our  Psedobap- 
list  brethren  are  allowed  to  be  in  covenant  with 

*  1  Corinthians  xi.  16. 
7* 


78 

God,  their  title  to  every  federal  rite  follows  of 
course,  unless  it  is  barred  by  some  clear  unequi- 
vocal declaration  of  scripture;  instead  of  which 
we  meet  with  nothing  on  the  opposite  side  but 
precarious  conjectures,  and  remote  analogies. 

Our  opponents  are  extremely  fond  of  repre- 
senting baptism  under  the  New  Testament,  as  es- 
sential as  circumcision  under  the  old,  inferring 
from  thence  that  no  unbaptized  person  is  admis- 
sible to  the  eucharist,  for  the  same  reason  that 
none  who  was  not  circumcised,  was  permitted  to 
partake  of  the  paschal  feast.  But  besides  that  is 
to  reason  from  analogy,  a  practice  against  which, 
when  applied  to  the  discussion  of  positive  insti- 
tutes, they  on  other  occasions  earnestly  protest,  the 
analogy  fails  in  the  most  essential  points.  Cir- 
cumcision is  expressly  stated  as  a  necessary  con- 
dition of  admission  to  the  passover:  a  similar 
statement  respecting  baptism  will  decide  the  con- 
troversy. The  neglect  of  circumcision,  which 
could  proceed  from  nothing  but  presumptuous 
impiety,  incurred  the  sentence  of  excision;  that 
soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  people.  Whatever 
may  be  meant  beside  by  that  commination,  it  will 
not  be  doubted  that  it  included  the  entire  forfeit- 
ure of  the  advantages  of  that  peculiar  covenant, 
which  God  ]was  pleased  to  establish  with  the  Is- 


79 

raelitish  people;  and  the  exclusion  from  the  pas- 
chal feast,  as  well  as  from  the  other  sacrifices, 
was  the  necessary  appendage  of  that  forfeiture. 

The  most  violent  Baptist  will  not  presume  to 
insinuate  that  the  neglect  of  baptism,  from  a  mis- 
conception of  its  nature,  is  exposed  to  a  similar 
penalty.  It  is  evident,  from  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  an  Israelite  became  disqualified 
lor  sharing  in  whatever  privileges  distinguished 
that  nation,  only  in  consequence  of  such  a  species 
of  criminality  as  cut  him  off  from  the  covenant* 
An  interest  in  that  covenant  (the  particular  nature 
of  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  insist  upon)  and  a 
free  access  to  all  the  privileges  and  institutions  of 
the  Jewish  people  were  inseparable,  so  that  nothing 
would  have  appeared  to  an  ancient  Jew  more  ab- 
surd, than  to  disunite  the  covenant  itself,  from  the 
federal  rites  by  which  it  was  ratified  and  confirm- 
ed. The  invention  of  this  ingenious  paradox  be- 
longs exclusively  to  the  abettors  of  strict  commu- 
.nion,  who  in  the  same  breath  affirm  that  Psedobap- 
tists  are  entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  new  and 
everlasting  covenant,  and  forbidden  to  comme- 
morate it:  and  scruple  not  to  assert,  that  though  in- 
terested as  much  as  themselves  in  the  great  sacri- 
fice, it  would  be  presumption  in  them  to  approach 
the  sacred  symbols,  which  are  appointed  for  no 


80 

other  purpose  but  to  hold  it  forth.  It  is  certainly 
with  a  very  ill  grace  that  the  champions  of  such 
monstrous  and  unparalleled  positions,  ridicule 
their  opponents  for  inventing  a  new  and  eccen- 
tric theology.1^ 

Before  I  dismiss  this  head,  I  must  remark  that 
in  insisting  upon  the  prior  claim  which  baptism 
possesses  to  the  attention  of  a  Christian  convert, 
the  advocates  of  strict  communion  triumph  with- 
out an  opponent.  We  know  of  none  who  contend 
for  the  propriety  of  inverting  the  natural  order 
of  the  Christian  sacraments,  where  they  can  both 

*  "  The  last  century,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  page  36,  "  was 
the  grand  era  of  improvement,  of  prodigious  improvement, 
in  light  and  liberty.  In  light,  as  well  divine  as  philosophi- 
cal, by  the  labours  of  a  Bacon,  a  Boyle,  and  a  Newton.  In 
pretended  theological  knowledge  by  those  of  a  Jesse  or  a 
Bunyan.  Did  the  former  by  deep  researches  into  the  system 
of  nature,  surprise  and  instruct  the  world,  by  discoveries 
of  which  mankind  has  never  before  conceived:  the  latter, 
penetrating  into  the  gospel  system,  amused  mankind  by 
casting  new  light  on  the  positive  institutions  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and  by  placing  baptism  among  things  of  little  im- 
portance in  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  no  ancient  the- 
ologian ever  dreamed — none  we  have  reason  to  think  that 
ever  loved  the  Lord  Redeemer."  A  little  after  he  adds,  "  the 
practical  claim  of  dispensing  power  by  Jesse  and  Bunyan, 
made  way  for  the  inglorious  liberty  of  treating  positive  in- 
vtitutiens  in  the  house  of  God  just  as  professors  please." 


81 

be  attended  to,  that  is  when  the  nature  of  each  is 
clearly  understood  and  confessed.  To  administer 
them  under  any  other  circumstances,  it  will  be 
acknowledged,  is  impracticable.  We  administer 
baptism,  let  it  be  remembered,  in  every  instance 
in  which  our  opponents  will  allow  it  ought  to  be 
administered;  and  the  only  difference  is,  that 
we  have  fellowship,  in  another  ordinance,  with 
those  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  whom 
they  reject.  Let  it  once  be  demonstrated  that  the 
obligation  of  commemorating  the  Saviour's  death, 
is  not  sufficiently  supported  by  his  express  injunc- 
tion, but  derives  its  force  and  validity  from  its  in- 
separable connection  with  a  preceding  sacrament, 
and  we  are  prepared  to  abandon  our  practice,  as 
a  presumptuous  innovation  on  the  laws  of  Christ. 
Till  then  we  shall  not  be  much  moved  by  the 
charge  of  claiming  a  dispensing  power  with 
which  we  are  frequently  accused — a  power  which 
I  presume  no  Protestant  ever  dreamed  of  usurp- 
ing, and  the  assumption  of  which  implies  such 
impiety  as  ought  to  render  a  Christian  reluctant 
to  urge  such  a  charge. 

To  remind  us  of  "  the  destruction  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu  by  fire  from  Heaven,  the  breach  that 
was  made  upon  Uzzah,  the  stigma  fixed,  and  the 
curses  denounced  upon  Jerusalem,  together  with 


82 

the  fall  and  ruin  of  all  mankind  by  our  first  fa- 
ther's disobedience  to  a  positive  command,"  is 
more  calculated  to  inflame  the  passions,  than  to 
elicit  truth,  or  conduct  the  controversy  to  a  satis- 
factory issue.  When  the  sole  inquiry  is,  what  is 
the  law  of  Christ,  and  we  are  fully  persuaded  that 
our  interpretation  of  it  is  more  natural  and  rea- 
sonable than  that  of  our  opponents,  it  is  not  a  lit- 
tle absurd,  to  charge  us  with  assuming  a  claim  of 
dispensing  with  its  authority.  We  know  that  he 
commanded  his  followers  to  be  baptized;  we  know 
also  thai  he  commanded  them    to   shew   forth  his 
death  till  he  came:  but  where  shall  we  look  for  a 
tittle  of  his  law  which  forbids  such  as  sincerely, 
though  erroneously  believe  themselves  to  have 
complied  with  the  first,  to  attend  to  the  last  of  these 
injunctions?  Where  is  the  scriptural  authority  for 
resting  the  obligation  of  the  eucharist,  not  on  the 
precept  that  enjoins  it,  but  on  the  previous  recep- 
tion of  baptism?  As  the  scripture  is  totally  silent 
on  this  point,  we  are  not  disposed  to  accept  the 
officious  assistance  of  our  brethren  in  supplying 
its  deficiency;  and  beg  permission  to  remind  them, 
that  to  add  to  the  word  of  God,  is  equally  crimi- 
nal with  taking  away  from  it. 

Do  we  neglect  the  administration  of  that  rite 
to  any  class  of  persons,  whose  state  of  mind  is 


83 

such  as  would  render  it  acceptable  to  God?  Do 
we  neglect  to  illustrate  and  enforce  it  in  our  pub- 
lic ministrations?  Are  we  accustomed  to  insinuate 
that  serious    inquiry  into  the  mind  of  Christ  on 
this  subject,  is  of  little,  or  no  importance?   Are 
we  found  to  decline  its  administration  in  any  case 
whatever,  in  which  our  accusers  would  not  equal- 
ly decline  it?  Nothing  of  this  can  be  alleged.  Do 
they  argue  from  the  language  of  the  original  in- 
stitute, from  the  examples  of  scripture,  and  the 
precedent  of  the  early  ages,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
believers  without  exception  to  be  immersed  in 
the  name  of  Jesus?  So  do  we.  Are  they  disposed 
to  look  upon  such  as  have  neglected,  whether 
from  inattention  or  prejudice,  to  perform  this  du- 
ty, as  mistaken  Christians?  We  also  consider  them 
in  the  same  light.    In   what  respect  then  are  we 
guilty  of  dispensing  with  divine  laws?  Merely  be- 
cause we  are  incapable  of  perceiving  that  an  invo- 
luntary mistake  on  this  subject,  disqualifies  for 
Christian  communion.   But  how  extremely  unjust 
to  load  us,  on  that  account,  with  the  charge  of  as- 
suming a  dispensing  power,  when  the  only  ground 
on  which  we  maintain  our  opinion,  whether  true 
or  false,  is  our  conviction  that  it  is  founded  on  a 
legitimate  interpretation  of  the  oracles  of  God. 
The  dispute  is  not  concerning  their  authority,  but 


84 

their  meaning;  and  we  dispense  with  baptism  in  no 
other  sense,  than  that  of  denying  it  to  be  in  all  cases 
essential  to  communion;  in  which,  whether  we 
are  mistaken  or  not,  is  a  point  open  to  controver- 
sy; but  to  be  guilty  first  of  a  misnomer  in  defining 
our  sentiments,  and  afterwards  to  convert  an  odi- 
ous and  erroneous  appellation  into  an  argument,  is 
the  height  of  injustice. 

With  what  propriety  our  practice  is  compared 
to  that  of  the  church  of  Rome,  in  confining  the 
communion  to  one  kind,  the  intelligent  reader 
will  be  at  no  loss  to  perceive.^  In  that  as  in  va- 
rious other  instances,  that  Church  in  order  to  raise 
the  dignity  of  the  priesthood,  assumes  a  power 

*  "It  must,  I  think,  be  acknowledged,"  says  Mr.  Booth, 
"  even  by  our  brethren  themselves,  that  we  have  as  good  a 
warrant  for  omitting  an  essential  branch  of  an  ordinance,  or 
to  reverse  the  order  in  which  the  constituent  parts  of  an  or- 
dinance were  originally  administered,  as  we  have  to  lay  aside 
a  divine  institution,  or  to  change  the  order  in  which  two 
different  appointments  were  first  fixed.  And  if  so,  were  a 
reformed  and  converted  Catholic,  still  retaining  the  popish 
error  of  communion  in  one  kind  only,  desirous  of  having 
fellowship  with  our  brethren  at  the  Lord's  table;  they  must 
if  they  would  act  consistently,  on  their  present  hypothesis, 
admit  him  to  partake  of  the  bread,  though  from  a  princi- 
ple of  conscience,  he  absolutely  refused  the  wine  in  that 
sacred  institution."— Booth's  dpologi/,  page  51. 


as 

of  mutilating  a  divine  ordinance.  We  are  charge- 
able with  no  mutilation,  nor  presume  in  the  small- 
est particular  to  innovate  in  the  celebration  of  ei* 
ther  sacraments;  we  merely  refuse  to  acknow- 
ledge that  dependence,  one  upon  the  other,  on 
which  the  confidence  of  our  opponents  is  so  ill 
sustained  by  the  silence  of  scripture. 

We  will  close  this  part  of  the  discussion  by  re- 
marking that  there  is  a  happy  equivocation  in  the 
word  dispense,  which  has  contributed  not  a  little 
to  its  introduction  into  the  present  controversy. 
It  may  either  mean  that  we  do  not  insist  upon 
bapusm  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  com- 
munion, in  which  sense  the  charge  is  true,  but 
nothing  to  the  purpose,  since  it  is  a  mere  state- 
ment, in  other  words,  of  our  actual  practice.  Or 
it  may  intend  that  we  knowingly  and  deliberately 
deviate  from  the  injunctions  of  scripture;  a  seri- 
ous accusation,  which  requires  not  to  be  asserted, 
but  proved. 


86 


SECTION  IV. 

Our  supposed  opposition  to  the  universal  suffrages 
of  the  church  considered. 

IN  admitting  to  our  communion  those  whom 
we  esteem  unbaptir.cd^  we  are  accused  of  a  pre- 
sumptuous departure  from  the  sentiments  of  al! 
parties  and  denominations  throughout  the  chris* 
tian  world,  who  however  they  may  have  differed 
upon  other  subjects,  have  unanimously  concur- 
red in  considering  baptism  as  a  necessary  preli- 
minary to  communion.* 

*  This  charge  is  urged  with  much  declamatory  vehe- 
mence by  Mr.  Booth  in  his  Apology: — "  A  sentiment  so  pe- 
culiar, and  a  conduct  so  uncommon,"  he  says,  "  in  regard 
to  this  institution,  ought  to  be  well  supported  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  were  all  the  Christian  churches 
now  in  the  world  asked,  except  those  few  who  plead  for 
free  communion,  whether  they  thought  it  lawful  to  admit 
imbaptized  believers  to  fellowship  at  the  Lord's  table,  there 
is  reason  to  believe  they  would  readily  unite  in  the  declara- 
tion of  Paul,  ice  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches  of 
God  that  -were  before  us.  Yes,  considering  the  novelty  of  their 
sentiments  and  conduct,  and  what  a  contradiction  they  are 
to  the  faith  and  order  of  the  whole  Christian  church,  consi* 
dering  that  it  was  never  disputed,  as  far  as  I  can  le<orn,  prior 


87 

The  first  remark  which  occurs  on  this  mode 
of  reasoning  is,  that  it  is  merely  an  argumentum 
ad  verecundiam,  an  attempt  to  overawe  by  the 
weight  of  authority,  without  pretending  to  enter 
into  the  merits  of  the  controversy.  It  assumes 
for  its  basis  the  impossibility  of  the  universal  pre- 
valence of  error,  which  if  it  be  once  admitted, 
all  hopes  of  extending  the  boundaries  of  know- 
ledge must  be  relinquished.  My  next  observation 
is,  that  it  comes  with  peculiar  infelicity  from  the 
members  of  a  sect,  who  upon  a  subject  of  much 
greater  moment  have  presumed  to  relinquish  the 
precedent,  and  arraign  the  practice  of  the  whole 
Christian  world,  as  far  at  least  as  they  have  been 
exhibited  in  these  latter  ages. 

Quis  tulerit  Gracchos,  de  seditione  querentes. 

After  setting  an  example  of  revolt,  it  is  too  late 
for  them  to  inculcate  the  duty  of  submission. 

to  the  sixteenth  century,  by  orthodox  or  heterodox,  by 
Papist  or  Protestant,  whether  imbaptized  believers  should 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table;  they  all  agreeing  in  the 
contrary  practice,  however  much  they  differed  in  matters 
of  equal  importance,  it  may  be  reasonably  expected,  and  it 
is  by  us  justly  demanded,  that  the  truth  of  their  sentiment, 
and  the  rectitude  of  their  conduct,  should  be  proved,  fully 
proved,  from  the  records  of  inspiration."— Booth's  Apology, 
page  34. 


88 

The  question  of  the  necessary  dependence  of 
communion  on  baptism,  being  of  no  practical  mo- 
ment whatever  in  any  other  circumstances  than 
our  own,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  it  has  ne- 
ver been  subjected  to  scrutiny;  since  cases  of  con- 
science, among  which  this  inquiry  may  be  classed, 
are  rarely  if  ever  investigated  until  circumstances 
occur  which  render  their  discussion  necessary. 
But  as  infinite  sprinkling  is  valid  in  the  esteem 
of  all  but  the  Baptists,  and  there  is  no  pretence 
for  considering  the  latter  as  unbaptized,  it  is  not 
easy  to  conceive  what  motive  could  exist  for  making 
it  an  object  of  serious  attention.  That  crude  and 
erroneous  conceptions  should  prevail  upon  ques- 
tions, the  decision  of  which  could  have  no  influ- 
ence on  practice,  will  not  surprise  those  who  reflect, 
that  truth  has  been  usually  elicited  by  controversy, 
and  that  on  subjects  of  too  great  importance  to 
be  entirely  overlooked,  opinions  have  prevailed 
to  a  great  extent,  which  are  now  universally  ex- 
ploded. Though  the  employment  of  coercion  in 
the  affairs  of  conscience,  is  equally  repugnant  to 
the  dictates  of  reason  and  of  scripture,  it  was  for 
ages  successively  resorted  to  by  every  party  in 
their  turn;  nor  was  it  till  towards  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century  that  the  principle  of  toleration 
was  established  on  a  broad  and  scientific  basis,  by 


89 

the  immortal  writings  of  Milton  and  of  Locktu 
These  reflections  are  obvious;  but  there  are 
others  which  tend  more  immediately  to  annihi- 
late the  objection  under  consideration.  It  is  well 
known  that  from  a  very  early  period  the  most  ex- 
travagant notions  prevailed  in  the  church  with 
respect  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  and  its  absolute 
necessity  in  order  to  attain  salvation.  The  descent 
of  the  human  mind  from  the  spirit  to  the  letter, 
from  what  is  vital  and  intellectual,  to  what  is 
ritual  and  external  in  religion,  is  the  true  source 
of  idolatry  and  superstition  in  all  the  multifarious 
forms  they  have  assumed;  and  as  it  began  early 
to  corrupt  the  religion  of  nature,  or  more  properly 
of  patriarchal  tradition,  so  it  soon  obscured  the 
lustre,  and  destroyed  the  simplicity  of  the  chris- 
tian  institute.  In  proportion  as  genuine  devotion 
declined,  the  love  of  pomp  and  ceremony  increas- 
ed; the  few  and  simple  rites  of  Christianity  were 
extolled  beyond  all  reasonable  bounds;  new  ones 
were  invented  to  which  mysterious  meanings 
were  attached,  till  the  religion  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament became,  in  process  of  time,  as  insupporta- 
ble a  yoke  as  the  Mosaic  law.  The  first  effects  of 
this  spirit  are  discernible  in  the  ideas  entertained 
of  the  ordinance,  so  closely  connected  with  the 
subject  of  the  present  treatise.  From  an  errone- 
8* 


90 

ous  interpretation  of  the  figurative  language  of  a 
few  passages  in  scripture,  in  which  the  sign  is 
identified  with  the  thing  signified,  very  similar  to 
the  mistake  which  afterwards  led  to  transubstan- 
tiation,  it  was  universally  supposed  that  baptism 
was  invariably  accompanied  with  a  supernatural 
effect,  which  totally  changed  the  state  and  charac- 
ter of  the  candidate,  and  constituted  him  a  child 
of  God,  and  an  heir  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, 
Hence  it  was  almost  constantly  denoted  by  the 
terms  illumination,  regeneration^  and  others,  ex- 
pressive of  the  highest  operations  of  the  Spirit; 
and  as  it  was  believed  to  obtain  the  plenary  re- 
mission of  all  past  sins,  it  was  cften,  in  order  to 
insure  that  benefit,  purposely  deferred  to  the 
latest  period  of  life.  Thus  Eusebius  informs  us 
that  the  Emperor  Constantine  u  finding  his  end 
fast  approaching,  judged  it  a  fit  season  for  purify- 
ing himself  from  his  offences,  and  cleansing  his 
soul  from  that  guilt  which  in  common  with 
other  mortals  he  had  contracted,  which  he  be- 
lieved was  to  be  effected  by  the  power  of  myste- 
rious words,  and  the  saving  laver."  "  This,"  said 
he,  addressing  the  surrounding  bishops,  u  is  the 
period  I  have  so  long  hoped  and  prayed  for,  the 
period  of  obtaining  the  salvation  of  God."  Pas- 
sing with  the  utmost  rapidity  through  the  prepa- 


91 

ratory  stage,  that  of  a  catechumen,  he  hastened 
to  what  he  regarded  as  his  consummation;  and  no 
sooner  was  the  ceremony  completed,  than  he  ar- 
rayed himself  in  white  garments,  and  laid  aside 
the  imperial  purple,  in  token  of  his  bidding  adieu 
to  all  secular  concerns."*  We  have  here  a  fair  spe- 
cimen of  the  sentiments  which  were  universally 
adopted  upon  this  subject  in  ancient  times.  Even 
Justin  Martyr,  who  flourished  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  confounds  baptism  with 
regeneration.  u  Whoever,"  says  he,  "  believe  the 
things  which  are  affirmed  by  us  to  be  true,  and 
promise  to  live  accordingly,  are  afterwards  con- 
ducted to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  and  are 
regenerated  by  the  same  method  of  regeneration 
which  we  have    experienced.'*f     Theophilus,  a 
contemporary  writer,  and  the  sixth  bishop  of  An- 
tioch,  holds  the  same  language.    Tertullian,  the 
earliest  and  most  learned  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
exclaims  with  rapture,   "  O  happy  sacrament,  by 
which,  being  washed  from  the  former  sins  of  our 
blindness,  we  are  delivered  unto  eternal  life."J 
And  agreeable  to  the  fantastic  style  of  imagery 
which  characterises  his  writings,  he  appears  to  be 
particularly  delighted   with  denominating  Chris- 

*  Et.sebius  in  vita  Constantini,  1.  4.  c.  61,  62. 
f  Apol.  p.  159,  Ed.  1651.    *  De  Baptismo,  Ed,  1676,  p.  224 


93 

tians,  little  fishes,  who  are  born  in  water,  and  are 
safe  only  in  that  element.  Were  we  to  attempt 
accurately  to  trace  the  progress  of  these  opinions, 
in  the  first  ages,  and  adequately  to  represent  the 
extent  of  their  prevalence,  we  should  be  under 
the  necessity,  by  numberless  quotations  from  the 
Fathers,  of  extending  this  inquiry  to  a  most  un- 
reasonable length. 

Suffice  it  to  remark,  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
\yriter  in  the  three  first  centuries,  to  descend  no 
lower,  who  has  not  spoken  upon  this  subject  in  a 
manner,  which  the  advocates  for  strict  commu- 
nion at  least,  would  deem  unscriptural  and  im- 
proper: scarcely  one  from  whom  we  should  not 
be  taught  to  infer,  that  baptism  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  salvation.  That  this  is  the  doctrine 
which  pervades  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of 
England,  is  too  evident  to  require  to  be  insisted 
on:  nor  is  it  less  so,  that  similar  sentiments  on 
this  head  are  exhibited,  to  a  greater  or  less  ex- 
tent in  the  creeds  of  most,  if  not  all  established 
churches.  Is  it  surprising  then  that  those  who 
contend  for  baptism  as  essential  to  salvation, 
should  consider  it  as  an  essential  prerequisite  to 
communion?  Or  is  it  not  a  much  juster  occasion 
for  surprise,  that  our  opponents  should  urge  us 
with  an  inference  which  it  is  acknowledged  was 


93 

deduced  from  erroneous  premises,  as  though  we 
were  under  the  necessity  of  admitting  a  conclu- 
sion, while  the  only  argument  by  which  it  is  sup- 
ported is  given  up.^r 

For  our  parts,  we  must  be  permitted  to  look 
with  suspicion  on  the  genuine  product  of  error, 
no  more  expecting  to  derive  truth  from  errone- 
ous premises,  than  grapes  from  thorns,  or  figs 
from  thistles.  In  the  present  instance,  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  opinion  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  baptism,  previous  to  communion,  sprang  from 
those  lofty  and  superstitious  ideas  respecting  its 
efficacy,  which  our  opponents  would  be  the  first 
to  disclaim.  Ask  a  Roman  Catholic,  a  Lutheran, 
or  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  on  what 
ground  he  rests  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  bap- 
tismal rite,  as  a  qualification  for  the  eucharist; 
and  each  of  them  will  concur  in  reminding  you, 
that  it  is  by  that  ordinance  we  become  the  chil- 

*  When  I  consider  the  firm  hold  which  these  unscriptural 
ideas  respecting-  baptism  had  taken  of  the  minds  of  men, 
throughout  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world  at  an  early  pe- 
riod, and  recollect  the  confidence  with  which  ancient  wri- 
ters assert  the  impossibility  even  of  infants  being1  saved 
without  baptism,  the  practice  of  infant-sprinkling  seems  an 
almost  necessary  result.  Who  with  such  a  conviction,  pos- 
sessed of  the  common  feelings  of  a  parent,  could  fail  to  se-. 
rurc  to  his  infant  offspring-  such  infinite  benefits? 


94 

dren  of  God,  and  heirs  of  his  kingdom.  The 
Augsburgh  Confession,  to  which  all  the  Luthe- 
ran churches  are  supposed  to  assent,  and  which 
was  solemnly  presented  to  Charles  the  Fifth  at 
the  Imperial  Diet,  as  the  authentic  exhibition  of 
their  sentiments,  expresses  itself  in  the  following 
terms: — "  Concerning  baptism,  they  (the  follow- 
ers of  Luther)  teach  that  it  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion; that  by  baptism  is  offered  the  grace  of  God; 
and  that  children  are  to  be  baptized,  who  being- 
presented  to  God  by  baptism,  are  received  into 
the  grace  of  God.  They  condemn  the  Anabap- 
tists, who  disapprove  of  the  baptism  of  children, 
and  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without  bap- 
tism.v*  Some  of  the  most  learned  divines  of  the 
Church  of  England  have  contended  that  baptism 
is  not  only  regeneration,  but  justification;  and 
have  made  elaborate  attempts  to  explode  every 
other  notion  of  that  blessing.f 

Such  are  the  principles  whence  this  vaunted 
unanimity  is  derived, — principles  which  our 
brethren  reprobate  on  all  occasions,  while  with 
a  strange  inconsistency  they  accuse  us  of  pre- 
sumption in  refusing  our  assent  to  their  legiti- 
mate consequences.  Let  it  be  recollected  also, 

*  Aug-sburgh  Confession,  Article  9. 
f  See  Waterland's  Sermon  on  that  subject. 


95 

that  the  points  in  which  they,  in  common  with 
ourselves,  dissent  from  a  vast  majority  of  the  pro- 
fessors of  Christianity  are  of  incomparably  more 
importance  than  the  particular  in  which  they 
agree;  for  whether  baptism  be,  on  all  occasions, 
a  necessary  preliminary  to  communion,  is  a  trivial 
question,  compared  to  that  which  respects  the 
identity  of  baptism  with  regeneration. 

The  argument  from  authority,  however,  when 
fairly  stated,  is  entirely  in  our  favour;  nor  would 
it  be  easy  to  assign  an  example  of  bolder  devia- 
tion from  the  universal  practice  of  the  Christian 
church,  than  the  conduct  of  our  opponents  sup- 
plies. They  are  the  only  persons  in  the  world 
of  whom  we  have  either  heard  or  read,  who  con- 
tend for  the  exclusion  of  genuine  Christians  from 
the  Lord's  table;  who  ever  attempted  to  distin- 
guish them  into  two  classes,  such  as  are  entitled 
to  commemorate  their  Saviour's  death,  and  such 
as  are  excluded  from  that  privilege.  In  what  page 
of  the  voluminous  records  of  the  Church  is  such 
a  distinction  to  be  traced?  Or  what  intimation 
shall  we  find  in  scripture  of  an  intention  to  create 
such  an  invidious  disparity  among  the  members 
of  the  same  body?  Did  it  ever  enter  the  concep- 
tion of  any  but  Baptists,  that  a  right  to  the  sign 
could  be  separated  from  the  thing  signified;  or 


96 

that  there  could  be  a  description  of  persons  in- 
terested in  all  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  cove- 
nant, yet  not  entitled  to  partake  of  its  sacraments 
and  seals? 

In  the  judgment  of  all  religious  communities 
besides,  and  in  every  period  of  the  Church,  ex- 
communication or  exclusion  has  been  considered 
as  a  stigma,  never  to  be  inflicted  but  on  men  of 
ill  lives,  or  on  the  abettors  of  heresy  and  schism; 
and  though  innumerable  instances  have  occurred, 
in  which  the  best  of  men  have  in  fact  been  ex- 
cluded, they  were  either  accused  of  fundamental 
error,  or  adjudged  on  account  of  their  obstinate 
resistance  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  to  have 
forfeited  the  privileges  of  Christians.  They  were 
not  excommunicated  under  the  character  of  mis- 
taken brethren,  which  is  the  light  in  which  we 
profess  to  consider  Pasdobaptists,  but  as  incura- 
ble heretics  and  schismatics.  The  Puritans  were 
expelled  the  Church  of  England  on  the  same 
principle;  and  although  at  the  Restoration,  a  vin- 
dictive spirit  was  unquestionably  the  chief  motive 
to  those  disgraceful  proceedings,  yet  the  preten- 
sions of  ecclesiastical  authority  were  carried  so 
high  in  those  unhappy  times,  as  to  furnish  the 
pretext  for  considering  them  as  contumacious 
contemners  of  the  power,  and  disturbers  of  the 


97 

peace  of  the  Church.  In  the  whole  course  of  ec- 
clesiastical proceedings,  no  maxim  was  more  fully 
recognised  than  that  the  sword  of  excommunica- 
tion cut  asunder  the  ties  of  fraternity,  and  con- 
signed the  offender,  unless  he  repented,  to  hope- 
less perdition. 

In  some  dissenting  societies  also,  it  is  true, 
creeds  are  established  which  every  candidate  for 
admission  is  expected  to  subscribe;  and  though 
these  summaries  of  Christian  doctrine  frequently 
contain  articles,  which  admitting  them  to  be  true, 
are  not  fundamental,  they  were  originally  deem- 
ed such  by  their  fabricators,  or  supposed  at  least 
to  be  accompanied  with  such  a  plenitude  of  evi- 
dence as  no  sincere  inquirer  could  resist;  and  they 
are  continued  under  the  same  persuasion. 

The  right  of  rejecting  those  whom  Christ  has 
received;  of  refusing  the  communion  of  eminently 
holy  men,  on  account  of  unessential  differences 
of  opinion,  is  not  the  avowed  tenet  of  any  sect 
or  community  in  Christendom,  with  the  exception 
of  a  majority  of  the  Baptists,  who  while  they  are 
at  variance  with  the  whole  world  on  a  point  of 
such  magnitude,  are  loud  in  accusing  their  breth- 
ren of  singularity.  If  we  have  presumed  to  resist 
the  current  of  opinion,  it  is  on  a  subject  of  no 
9 


98 

practical  moment;  it  respects  an  obscure  and  neg- 
lected corner  of  theology;  while  their  singularity 
is  replete  with  most  alarming  consequences,  de- 
stroys at  once  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  pro- 
nounces a  sentence  of  excommunication  on  the 
whole  Christian  world. 

Having  without  disguise  exhibited  in  their  full 
force  the  reasoning  of  the  advocates  of  strict 
communion,  and  replied  to  it  in  the  best  manner 
we  are  able,  it  must  be  left  to  the  impartial  read- 
er to  determine  on  which  side  the  evidence  pre- 
ponderates; of  which  he  will  be  able  to  judge  more 
completely,  when  we  have  stated  at  large  the 
grounds  of  the  opposite  practice,  which  we  have 
reserved  for  the  second  part  of  this  treatise; 
where  we  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  noticing 
some  minor  objections,  which  could  not  be  so 
conveniently  adverted  to  in  the  former, 


99 


PART  II. 


THE  POSITIVE  GROUNDS  ON  WHICH  WE  JUSTIFY 
THE  PRACTICE  OF  MIXED  COMMUNION. 


SECTION  I. 

Free  communion  urged,  from  the  obligation  of 
brotherly  love. 

THAT  we  are  commanded,  in  terms  the  most 
absolute,  to  cultivate  a  sincere  and  warm  attach- 
ment to  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  and  that 
no  branch  of  Christian  duty  is  inculcated  more 
frequently,  or  with  more  force,  will  be  admitted 
without  controversy.  Our  Lord  instructs  us  to 
consider  it  as  the  principal  mark  or  feature  by 
which  his  followers  are  to  be  distinguished  in 
every  age.  "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye 
are  my  disciples,  if  ye  love  one  another.  As  I 
have  loved  you,  ye  ought  also  to  love  one  ano- 
ther;" whence  it  is  evident  that  the  pattern  we  are 


400 

to  follow  is  the  love  which  Christ  bore  to  his 
Church,  which  is  undoubtedly  extended  indiscri- 
minately to  every  member.  The  cultivation  of 
this  disposition  is  affirmed  to  be  one  of  the  most 
essential  objects  of  the  Christian  revelation,  as 
well  as  the  most  precious  fruit  of  that  faith  by 
which  it  is  embraced.  "  Seeing,"  says  St.  Peter, 
"  ye  have  purified  your  hearts  by  obeying  the 
truth  unto  an  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  see 
that  ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fer- 
vently." Agreeably  to  which,  the  beloved  disciple 
affirms  it  to  be  the  chief  evidence  of  our  being 
in  a  state  of  grace  and  salvation.  "  By  this  we 
know  that  we  are  passed  from  death  unto  life,  be- 
cause we  love  the  brethren."  Let  it  also  be  re- 
membered, that  the  mode  in  which  we  are  com- 
manded to  exhibit  and  express  this  most  eminent 
grace  of  the  Spirit,  is  the  preservation  of  union, 
a  careful  avoidance  of  every  temper  and  practice 
which  might  produce  alienation  and  division.  To 
this  purpose,  St.  Paul  reminds  us  of  that  union 
which  subsists  betwixt  the  several  parts  of  the 
body,  the  harmony  with  which  its  respective  func- 
tions are  carried  on,  where  the  noblest  organ  is 
incapable  of  dispensing  with  the  action  of  the 
meanest,  together  with  that  quick  feeling  of  sym- 
pathy which  pervades  the  whole;  all  which,  he 


101 

tells  us,  is  contrived  and  adjusted  to  prevent  a 
schism  in  the  body.  In  applying  this  illustration 
to  the  subject  before  us,  it  is  impossible  not  to 
perceive  that  when  one  part  of  Christ's  mystical 
body  refuses  to  co-operate  with  another  in  a  prin- 
cipal spiritual  function,  such  as  communing  at 
the  Lord's  table,  that  every  evil  subsists  against 
which  we  are  so  anxiously  guarded;  and  what  is 
more  extraordinary,  subsists  upon  the  principle 
we  are  opposing,  by  divine  appointment.  In  the 
last  prayer  our  Saviour  uttered,  in  which  he  ex- 
pressly includes  all  who  should  hereafter  believe, 
he  earnestly  intreats  that  they  may  be  all  one, 
even  as  he  and  his  Father  were  one,  that  the 
world  might  be  furnished  with  a  convincing  evi- 
dence of  his  mission.  For  some  ages  the  object 
of  that  prayer  was  realized,  in  the  harmony  which 
prevailed  amongst  Christians,  whose  religion  was 
a  bond  of  union  more  strict  and  tender  than  the 
ties  of  consanguinity;  and  with  the  appellation  of 
Brethren,  they  associated  all  the  sentiments  of 
endearment  that  relation  implied.  To  see  men  of 
the  most  contrary  character  and  habits,  the  learn- 
ed and  the  rude,  the  most  polished  and  the  most 
uncultivated,  the  inhabitants  of  countries  alienated 
from  each  other  by  institutions  the  most  repug- 
nant, and  by  contests  the  most  violent,  forgetting 
9* 


103 

their  ancient  animosity,  and  blending  into  one 
mass,  at  the  command  of  a  person  whom  they 
had  never  seen,  and  who  had  ceased  to  be  an  in- 
habitant of  this  world,  was  an  astonishing  specta- 
cle. Such  a  sudden  assimilation  of  the  most  dis- 
cordant materials,  such  love  issuing  from  hearts 
naturally  selfish,  and  giving  birth  to  a  new  race 
and  progeny,  could  be  ascribed  to  nothing  but  a 
divine  interposition:  it  was  an  experimental  proof 
of  the  commencement  of  that  kingdom  of  God, 
that  celestial  economy,  by  which  the  powers  of 
the  future  world  are  imparted  to  the  present. 
When  we  turn  from  contemplating  this,  to  the 
practice  under  consideration,  we  see  an  opposite 
phenomenon;  a  sect  of  Christians  coming  to  an 
open  rupture  and  separation  in  point  of  commu- 
nion with  the  whole  Christian  world;  and  we  ask 
whether  it  be  possible  to  reconcile  such  a  conduct 
with  the  import  of  our  Saviour's  prayer.  If  it  is 
not,  it  must  be  condemned  as  antichristian,  unless 
we  hesitate  to  affirm,  that  whatever  is  repugnant 
to  the  mind  of  Christ,  merits  that  appellation. 
Let  it  be  remembered  too,  that  though  the  prayer 
we  have  adduced  was  uttered  by  him  who  pos- 
sessed a  perfect  knowledge  of  futurity,  and  was 
thoroughly  apprized  of  the  diversities  of  senti- 
ment which  would  arise  among  his  followers,  he 


103 

was  not  deterred  by  that  consideration  from  com- 
prehending in  this  his  desire  of  union,  all  who 
should  hereafter  believe  on  his  name. 

Whatever  attachment  our  opponents  may  pro- 
fess to  those  whom  they  exclude,  their  behaviour, 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  is  so  ill  adapted  to  ac- 
credit their  professions,  that  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world,  who  judge  by  sensible  appearances,  and 
are  strangers  to  subtle  distinctions,  such  a  pro- 
ceeding will  inevitably  be  considered  as  a  practi- 
cal declaration  that  the  persons  from  whom  they 
separate  are  not  Christians.  There  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  the  precepts  of  the  gospel  on  this, 
as  well  as  every  other  breach  of  morals,  are  to  be 
interpreted  on  a  liberal  scale;  and  that  when  they 
enjoin  any  particular  disposition  in  general  terms, 
we  must  consider  the  injunction  as  comprehend- 
ing all  its  natural  demonstrations,  all  its  genuine 
expressions.  But  to  refuse  the  communion  of  sin- 
cere Christians,  is  not  a  natural  expression  of 
Christian  love,  but  so  diametrically  opposite,  that 
we  may  fairly  put  it  to  the  conscience  of  those 
who  contend  for  such  a  measure,  whether  they 
find  it  possible  to  carry  it  into  execution  without 
an  inward  struggle,  without  feeling  emotions  of 
sorrow  and  concern.  It  is  to  inflict  4  wound  on 
the  very  heart  of  charity,  for  no  fault,  for  none  at 


104 

least  of  which  the  offender  is  conscious,  for  none 
which  such  treatment  has  the  remotest  tendency 
to  correct;  and  if  this  is  not  being  guilty  of  "  beat- 
ing our  fellow-servant,"  we  must  despair  of  as- 
certaining the  meaning  of  the  terms. 

Were  the  children  of  the  same  parent,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  different  construction  they  put 
on  a  disputed  clause  in  their  father's  will,  to  re- 
iiise  to  eat  at  the  same  table,  or  to  drink  out  of* 
the  same  cnp,  it  would  be  ridiculous  for  them  to 
pretend  that  their  attachment  to  each  other  re- 
mained undiminished;  nor  is  it  less  so  for  Chris- 
tians to  assert  that  their  withdrawing  from  com- 
munion with  their  brethren,  is  no  interruption  to 
their  mutual  harmony  and  affection.  It  is  a  se- 
rious and  awful  interruption,  and  will  ever  be  con- 
sidered in  that  light  as  long  as  the  interior  senti- 
ments of  the  mind  continue  to  be  interpreted  by 
their  natural  signs.  I  have  known  more  instances 
than  one  of  good  men  complaining  of  the  un- 
easiness, I  might  say  the  anguish,  they  felt  on 
those  occasions,  when  they  witnessed  some  of 
their  most  intimate  friends,  persons  of  exalted 
piety,  compelled,  after  joining  in  the  other  branch- 
es of  worship,  to  withdraw  from  the  Lord's  table, 
as  though  u  they  had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  mat- 
ter." We  have  been  accustomed  to  conceive  that 


log 

the  dictates  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  always  in 
harmony  with  his  operations,  the  precepts  of  the 
gospel  with  its  spirit;  and  that  nothing  was  en- 
joined as  matter  of  duty  on  Christians,  which  of- 
fered violence  to  the  best  feelings  of  the  renewed 
heart.  We  have  always  supposed  that  by  the  law 
of  Christ  we  were  called  to  mortify  the  old  man 
only  with  his  affections  and  lusts;  but  if  the  doc- 
trine of  our  opponents  be  true,  we  shall  be  fre- 
quently summoned  to  the  strange  discipline  of  re- 
pressing the  movements  of  Christian  charity;  and 
the  practice  of  quenching  the  Spirit,  instead  of 
being  regarded  with  the  horror,  will  become  on 
many  occasions  an  indespensable  duty.  For  this 
new  and  unheard-of  conflict,  in  which  the  injunc- 
tions of  Christ,  and  the  dictates  of  his  Spirit, 
propel  us  in  opposite  directions,  we  acknowledge 
ourselves  unprepared. 

In  order  to  place  this  part  of  our  subject  in  its 
strongest  light,  it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  what 
we  have  suggested  before,  respecting  the  two-fold 
import  of  the  eucharist  that  it  is  first  a  feast  up- 
on a  sacrifice,  in  which  we  are  actual  partakers  by 
faith  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer  of- 
fered upon  the  cross.  Considered  in  this  view,  it 
is  a  federal  rite,  in  which  we  receive  the  pledge 
of  reconciliation,  while  we  avouch  the  Lord  to 


106 

be  our  God,  and  surround  his  table  as  a  part  of 
his  family.  In  its  secondary  import,  it  is  intend- 
ed as  a  solemn  recognition  of  each  other  as 
members  of  Christ,  and  consequently,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  Paul,  "  as  one  body,  and  one  bread." 
Now  we  either  acknowledge  Paedobaptists  to  be 
Christians,  or  we  do  not.  If  not,  let  us  speak  out 
without  reserve,  and  justify  their  exclusion  at 
once,  upon  a  broad  and  consistent  basis.  But  if 
we  reject  a  sentiment  so  illiberal,  why  refuse  to 
unite  with  them  in  an  appointment,  which  as  far 
as  its  social  import  is  concerned,  has  no  other 
object  than  to  express  that  fraternal  attachment 
which  we  actually  feel?  Why  select  as  the  line  of 
demarcation,  the  signal  of  disunion,  that  particu- 
lar branch  of  worship,  which  if  we  credit  the  in- 
spired writers,  was  ordained  in  preference  to  ev- 
ery other,  to  be  the  symbol  of  Christian  unity? 
That  they  are  equally  capable  with  ourselves  of 
deriving  the  spiritual  edification  and  improve- 
ment attached  to  this  ordinance,  is  implied  in  the 
acknowledgment  of  their  being  Christians;  while 
with  respect  to  its  import  as  asocial  act,  or  an  act 
of  communion,  it  implies  neither  more  nor  less 
than  a  recognizance  of  their  claim  to  that  title.  It 
neither  implies  that  they  are  baptized,  nor  the 
contrary;  it  has  no  retrospective  view  to  that  or- 


107 

dinance  whatever;  it  implies  neither  more  nor  less 
than  that  they  are  members  of  Christ,  and  the 
objects  consequently  of  that  fraternal  attachment, 
which  our  opponents  themselves  profess  to  feel. 

SECTION  H. 

The  practice  of  open  communion  argued^  from  the 
express  injunction  of  scripture  respecting  the 
conduct  to  be  maintained  by  sincere  Christians 
who  differ  in  their  religious  sentiments. 

WE  are  expressly  commanded  in  the  scriptures 
to  tolerate  in  the  church  those  diversities  of  opi- 
nion which  are  not  inconsistent  with  salvation. 
We  learn  from  the  New  Testament  that  a  diver- 
sity of  views  subsisted  in  the  times  of  the  Apos- 
tles, betwixt  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  es- 
pecially, the  former  retaining  an  attachment  to 
the  ancient  law,  and  conceiving  the  most  essential 
parts  of  it  to  be  still  in  force;  the  latter  from  cor- 
recter  views,  rejecting  it  altogether.  Some  de- 
clined the  use  of  certain  kinds  of  meat  forbidden 
by  Moses,  which  others  partook  of  without  scru- 
ple: "one  man  esteemed  one  day  above  ano- 
ther," conscientiously  observing  the  principal  Jew- 
ish solemnities;  "  another  esteemed  every  day 


108 


alike."  Among  the  Jewish  converts,  very  differ- 
ent sentiments  were  entertained  on  the  subject  of 
circumcision,  which  all  appeared  to  have  observed, 
though  upon  different  principles;  the  more  en- 
lightened, like  St.  Paul,  from  a  solicitude  to  avoid 
unnecessary  offence:  the  more  superstitious,  from 
persuasion  of  its  intrinsic  obligation;  and  some 
because  they  believed  it  impossible  to  be  saved 
without  it;  by  which  they  endangered,  to  say  the 
least,  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  justification,  by 
faith.  Against  the  sentiment  last  mentioned,  we 
find  St.  Paul  protesting  with  vehemence,  and  af- 
firming with  all  the  authority  of  his  office,  that 
"  if  any  man  was  circumcised"  with  such  views, 
"  Christ  profited  him  nothing;"  but  on  no  occa- 
sion proceeding  to  excommunication.  The  con- 
tention arising  from  the  discussion  of  these  points 
became  so  violent,  that  there  appeared  no  method 
of  terminating  it,  but  to  depute  Paul  and  Barnabas 
to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  consult  the  Apostles, 
who  being  solemnly  convened  on  the  occasion,  is- 
sued the  famous  decree  contained  in  the  fifteenth 
of  the  Acts,  by  which  the  liberty  of  the  gospel 
was  confirmed,  and  the  domineering  spirit  of  Jew- 
ish zealots  repressed.  Though  the  success  of  this 
measure  was  great,  it  was  not  complete;  a  contra- 
riety of  opinion  and  of  practice  prevailed  in  the 


109 

church  respecting  Jewish  ceremonies  and  obser- 
vances, which  considerably  impaired  its  harmo- 
ny. But  instead  of  attempting  to  silence  the  re- 
maining differences,  by  interposing  his  autho- 
rity, St.  Paul  enjoins  mutual  toleration.  "Him 
that  is  weak  in  faith  receive  ye  not  to  doubtful 
disputations.  For  one  believeth  that  he  may  eat 
all  things;  another  who  is  weak  eateth  herbs.  Let 
not  him  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth  not; 
and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not,  judge  him  that 
eateth;  for  God  hath  received  him.  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  another  man's  servant?  unto  his  own 
master  he  standeth,  or  falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be 
holden  up;  for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand. 
One  man  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every 
man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.'5^ 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  following  injunc- 
tions in  the  next  chapter: — "  We  then  that  are 
strong,  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak, 
and  not  to  please  ourselves.  Now  the  God  of  peace 
and  consolation  grant  you  to  be  like  minded  one 
towards  another  according  to  Jesus  Christ,  that 
ye  may  with  one  mind  and  with  one  mouth,  glo- 
rify God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  as 

*  Romans  xiv.  1.  5. 
10 


110 

Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  Glory  of 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  passages  we  have  ad- 
duced contain  an  apostolic  canon  for  the  regula- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  such  Christians  as  agree  in 
fundamentals,  while  they  differ  on  points  of  sub- 
ordinate importance;  by  this  canon  they  are  com- 
manded to  exercise  a  reciprocal  toleration  and  in- 
dulgence, and  on  no  account  to  proceed  to  an 
open  rupture.  In  order  to  apply  it  to  the  question 
under  consideration,  it  is  only  necessary  to  con- 
sider to  what  description  of  persons  the  rule  ex- 
tends. The  persons  we  are  commanded  to  re- 
ceive are  the  -weak  in  faith.  From  the  context,  as 
well  as  from  other  parts  of  his  epistles,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Str  Paul  means  to  designate  by  that  ap- 
pellation, sincere  though  erring  Christians;  and  in 
the  instance  then  under  contemplation,  persons 
whose  organs  were  not  yet  attempered  to  the 
blaze  of  gospel  light  and  liberty,  but  who  still 
clung  to  certain  legal  usages  and  distinctions, 
which  more  comprehensive  views  of  revelation 
would  have  taught  them  to  discard.  The  term 
\veak  is  employed  by  the  same  writer  in  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians,  to  denote  an  erroneous  con- 
science, founded  on  a  false  persuasion  of  a  certain 

*  Romans  xv.  1.  6.  F, 


Ill 

power  and  efficacy  attached  to  idols,  of  which  they 
are  really  destitute.  "  For  himself,"  he  tells  us, 
"  he  knew  that  an  idol  was  nothing,  but  every  one 
was  not  possessed  of  that  knowledge;  for  some 
with  conscience  of  the  idol,  with  an  interior  con- 
viction of  its  power,  eat  of  the  sacrifice,  as  a  thing 
offered  to  an  idol,  and  their  conscience  being  weak) 
is  defiled."  In  the  chapter  whence  these  words 
are  quoted,  the  term  -weak  occurs  not  less  than  five 
times,  and  in  each  instance  is  used  as  synonymous 
with  erroneous.  I  have  insisted  the  more  on  this 
particular,  in  order  to  obviate  a  misconception 
which  may  arise  from  the  acknowledged  ambigu- 
ity of  the  word  weak,  which  might  be  supposed 
to  intend  not  a  mistaken  or  erring  mind,  but  a 
mind  not  sufficiently  confirmed  in  the  truth  to 
which  it  assents.  The  certainty  of  its  compre- 
hending the  case  of  error  being  once  admitted,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  multiply  words  to  evince  its 
bearing  on  the  present  controversy;  all  that  re- 
mains to  be  considered  is  the  principle  on  which 
toleration  is  enforced,  which  every  impartial  read- 
er must  perceive  is  the  assumption  that  the  er- 
rors and  mistakes  to  be  tolerated  are  not  funda- 
mental, not  of  such  a  nature,  in  other  words,  as  to 
prevent  those  who  maintain  them  from  being  ac- 
cepted with  God.  "  Let  not  him  that  eateth  de- 


112 

spise  him  who  eateth  not;  and  let  not  him  that  eat- 
eth  not,  judge  him  that  eateth;  for  God  hath  re- 
ceived him."  What  can  this  mean  but  that  the  er- 
ror in  question  to  whichsoever  side  it  be  imputed, 
was  of  a  description  not  to  exclude  its  abettor 
from  being  an  accepted  servant  of  God,  who  as 
he  at  present  bears  with  his  infirmity,  is  well  able, 
whenever  he  pleases,  to  correct  and  remove  it. 
He  further  proceeds  to  urge  a  spirit  of  forbear- 
ance from  a  consideration  of  the  perfect  integrity 
with  which  both  parties  maintained  their  respec- 
tive opinions.  Both  were  equally  conscientious, 
and  therefore  neither  deserved  to  be  treated  with 
severity.  "  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another," 
he  adds,  "  even  as  Christ  has  received  you  to  the 
glory  of  the  Father."  When  he  thus  commands 
Christians  to  receive  each  other,  and  enforces  that 
duty  by  the  example  of  Christ,  it  surely  requires 
little  penetration  to  perceive  that  the  practice  en- 
joined ought  to  be  commensurate  to  that  example, 
and  that  this  precept  obliges  us  to  receive  all 
whom  Christ  has  received.  To  interpret  it  other- 
wise, is  to  suppose  the  example  irrelevant,  and  at 
once  to  annihilate  the  principle  on  which  the  in- 
junction is  founded. 

Having   paved  the  way  to  the  conclusion  to 
which  we  would  conduct  the  reader,  we  have 


only  to  remark,  that  in  order  to  determine  how 
far  these  apostolic  injunctions  oblige  us  to  tole- 
rate the  supposed  error  of  our  Psedobaptist 
brethren,  we  have  merely  to  consider  whether 
it  necessarily  excludes  them  from  being  of  the 
number  of  those  whom  Christ  has  received,  to 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  whether  it  be  possible 
to  hold  it  with  Christian  sincerity,  and  finally, 
whether  its  abettors  will  stand  or  fall  in  the  eter- 
nal judgment. 

If  these  questions  are  answered  in  the  way 
which  Christian  candour  irresistibly  suggests,  and 
which  the  judgment  of  our  opponents  approves, 
they  conclude  in  favour  of  the  admission  of  Psedo- 
baptists  to  communion,  not  less  forcibly  than  if 
they  had  been  mentioned  by  name;  and  all  at- 
tempts to  evade  them,  must  prove  futile  and  abor- 
tive. If  it  be  asserted  on  the  contrary,  that  a 
mistake  on  the  subject  of  baptism  is  not  compre- 
hended in  the  above  description,  the  passages 
adduced  must  be  acknowledged  irrelevant,  and 
the  whole  controversy  assumes  a  new  aspect. 

In  the  same  spirit  the  Apostle  earnestly  presses 
on  the  Philippians  the  obligation  of  maintaining 
an  uninterrupted  harmony,  and  of  cultivating  a 
fraternal  affection  to  each  other,  even  while  he  is 
contemplating  the  possibility  of  their  entertaining 
10  * 


114 

different  apprehensions  respecting  truth  and  duty. 
After  proposing  himself  as  an  example  of  the  re- 
nunciation of  legal  hopes,  and  the  serious  study 
of  perfection,  he  adds,  "Let  us  therefore,  as  many 
as  are  perfect,  as  many  as  have  obtained  correct 
and  enlarged  views  of  the  gospel,  be  thus  mind- 
ed; and  if  in  any  thing  ye  are  otherwise  minded, 
or  rather  differently  minded,  possessing  different 
views  and  apprehensions  on  certain  subjects,  God 
will  reveal  even  this  unto  you.*  Nevertheless, 
wherein  we  have  already  attained,  let  us  walk  by 
the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same  thing."  Here 
the  case  of  a  diversity  of  sentiment  arising  among 
Christians  is  distinctly  assumed,  and  the  proper 
remedy  suggested,  which  is  not  the  exercise  of  a 
compulsory  power,  much  less  a  separation  of  com- 
munion, but  the  ardent  pursuit  of  Christian  piety, 
accompanied  with  a  humble  dependence  on  divine 
teaching,  which  it  may  reasonably  be  expected, 
will  in  due  time  correct  the  errors  and  imperfec- 
tions of  sincere  believers.  The  conduct  to  be 
maintained  in  the  meanwhile,  was  a  cordial  co- 
operation in  every  branch  of  worship  and  of  prac- 

*  See  an  admirable  criticism  on  this  passage  in  Bishop 
Horseley's  Sermons,  where  the  word  trigo;,  which  is  the 
key  to  the  whole  passage,  is  most  happily  elucidated,— Vol 
2.  page  358. 


115 

tice,  with  respect  to  which  they  were  agreed,  with- 
out attempting  to  affect  a  unanimity  by  force;  and 
this  is  precisely  the  conduct  which  we  contend 
should  be  maintained  towards  our  Psedobaptist 
brethren.  If  they  can  be  repelled  from  the  Lord's 
table,  without  violating  both  the  letter  and  the  spi- 
rit of  the  preceding  and  of  similar  admonitions, 
we  are  prepared,  however  reluctantly,  to  acquiesce 
in  their  exclusion;  but  if  they  cannot,  it  deserves 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  advocates  of  that 
measure,  how  they  can  reconcile  the  palpable  in- 
fringement of  such  precepts  with  the  scrupulous 
adherence  to  the  dictates  of  scripture,  to  which 
they  make  such  loud  pretensions. 

It  will  surely  not  be  denied  that  the  precepts 
of  the  gospel  are  entitled  to  at  least  as  much  re- 
verence as  apostolical  precedents,  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  language  of  the  former,  as  is 
befitting  laws,  is  clear  and  determinate,  while  in- 
ferences deduced  from  the  latter  are  frequently 
subject  to  debate;  not  to  remark,  that  if  we  con- 
sider the  spirit  of  scripture  precedent,  it  will  be 
found  entirely  in  our  favour. 

When  the  abettors  of  exclusive  communion 
are  pressed  with  the  conclusions  resulting  from 
the  passages  we  have  quoted,  and  others  of  a  si- 
milar tendency,  their  usual  answer  is  that  the  in- 


116 

spired  writers  make  no  mention  of  baptism  on 
these  occasions,  and  that  no  allusion  is  had  to  a 
diversity  of  opinion  on  the  positive  institutions 
of  the  gospel;  which  is  perfectly  true,  and  per- 
fectly foreign  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  al- 
leged; for  the  question  at  issue  is  not — What 
were  the  individual  errors  we  are  commanded  to 
tolerate;  but — What  is  the  ground  on  which  that 
measure  is  enforced,  and  whether  it  be  sufficiently 
comprehensive  to  include  the  Paedobaptists.  That 
it  is  so,  that  they  are  actually  included,  can  only 
be  denied  by  affirming  that  they  are  precluded 
from  divine  acceptance,  since  it  is  precisely  on 
that  ground  that  St.  Paul  rests  the  plea  of  tolera- 
tion. To  object  to  the  application  of  a  general 
principle  to  a  particular  case,  that  it  is  not  the 
identical  one  which  first  occasioned  its  enunci- 
ation, is  egregious,  tnfling,  and  would  go  to  the 
subversion  of  all  general  principles  whatever,  and 
consequently  put  an  end  to  all  reasoning.  When 
a  doubtful  point  in  morality  is  to  be  decided  by 
an  appeal  to  a  general  principle,  it  is  an  essential 
property  of  such  a  principle  to  extend  to  more 
particulars  than  one;  since  if  it  did  not,  it  would 
cease  to  be  a  principle,  and  the  point  in  question 
would  be  left  to  be  decided  by  itself;  and  if  not 
self-evident,  could  admit  of  no  decision  whatever. 


117 

When  Nadab  and  Abihu,  intoxicated  with  wine, 
offered  strange  fire  upon  the  altar  and  were  struck 
with  instant  death  for  their  presumption,  Moses 
by  divine  command  prescribed  the  following  ge- 
neral rule  for  the  worship  of  God: — UI  will  be 
sanctified  of  all  them  that  draw  nigh  unto  me,  and  ;~ 
before  all  the  people  will  I  be  glorified."  Who  > 
can  be  at  a  loss  to  perceive  the  absurdity  of  limit- 
ing that  precept  to  the  prohibition  of  intoxication, 
the  crime  which  occasioned  its  first  promulgation, 
instead  of  extending  it  to  every  instance  of  levity 
and  impiety,  in  an  approach  to  the  divine  Majesty. 
My  consciousness  of  the  extreme  weight  of  pre- 
judice which  the  truth  has  to  encounter,  together 
with  the  inaptitude  of  many  who  are  most  inte- 
rested in  this  controversy  to  ascend  to  first  princi- 
ples, is  my  only  apology  for  insisting  upon  a  point 
so  obvious;  chusing  rather  to  hazard  the  contempt 
of  the  wise,  than  not  to  impress  conviction  on  the 
vulgar. 

With  such  as  admit  the  possibility  of  Psedo- 
baptists  being  saved,  there  remains  in  my  appre- 
hension no  alternative,  but  either  to  receive  them 
into  their  communion  without  scruple,  as  com- 
prehended within  the  apostolic  canon,  or  to  affirm 
that  decision  to  be  founded  on  erroneous  grounds; 
which  at  once  removes  the  controversy  to  a  su~ 


118 

perior  tribunal,  where  they  and  the  Apostle  must 
implead  each  other.  Let  us  however,  briefly  ex- 
amine certain  distinctions  they  have  recourse  to, 
in  order  to  elude  the  force  of  these  passages.  In 
the  first  place,  it  has  been  alleged  that  though  we 
are  commanded  to  receive  our  mistaken  brethren, 
we  are  not  instructed  to  receive  them  at  the 
Lord's  table,  or  into  the  external  communion  of 
the  church;  and  that  such  injunctions  are  conse- 
quently irrelevant  to  the  inquiry  respecting  the 
right  of  persons  of  a  similar  character  to  those 
external  privileges  of  which  they  make  no  men- 
tion. "  Is  there  no  way,"  say  our  opponents, 
"of  receiving  him  that  is  weak  in  faith,  but  by 
admitting  him  to  the  Lord's  table?  Must  the  ex- 
hortation to  receive  a  Christian  brother  be  con- 
fined to  that  single  instance  of  true  benevolence?"* 
To  this  we  reply  that  we  know  of  none  who  as- 
sert that  the  term  receive  must  necessarily  be 
limited  to  the  single  act  of  a  reception  at  the 
Lord's  table;  but  we  affirm  without  hesitation, 
that  he  is  not  received  in  the  sense  of  the  Apos- 
tle, who  is  denied  that  privilege.  Had  the  parties 
whom  he  addressed  proceeded  to  an  open  rupture 
in  point  of  communion,  would  they,  in  the  judg- 

*  Booth's  Apology,  page  101. 


119 

ment  of  our  opponents,  have  complied  with  the 
purport  and  spirit  of  his  injunction?  And  if,  after 
adopting  such  a  measure,  they  had  appealed  to  the 
Apostle,  whether  there  "  were  no  other  way  of 
receiving  their  brethren  but  by  admitting  them 
to  the  Lord's  table,"  would  he,  or  would  he  not, 
have  considered  himself  as  mocked  and  insulted? 
Mr.    Booth  enumerates   many  instances  in  St. 
Paul's  epistles,  in  which  he  enjoins  Christians  to 
receive  certain  persons,  such  as  Phoebe,  Onesimus, 
Epaphroditus,  and  himself,  where  an  admission 
to  the  Lord's  table  was  not  intended,  but  some- 
thing which  he  informs  us  would  manifest  their 
love  in  a  much  higher  degree.*     What  a  con- 
vincing demonstration  of  the  propriety  of  with- 
holding from  persons  of  a  similar  character,  that 
lower,  that  inferior  token  of  esteem  which  is  in- 
cluded in  Christian  fellowship!    And  because  the 
bare  admission  of  all  the  persons  mentioned  to 
the  external  communion  of  the  church,  did  not 
satisfy  the  ardent  benevolence  of  the  Apostle, 
without  more  decided  and  discriminate  marks  of 
attachment,  nor  answer  in  the  opinion  of  our  op- 
ponents to  the  full  import  of  the  word  receive,  the 
trut  method  of  realising  his  intentions,  is  to  re- 
ject the  modern  Phoebe  and  Onesimus  altogether. 

*  Booth's  Apology,  page  102. 


120 

"  Supposing  however,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "  that 
there  were  no  way  of  receiving  one  that  is  weak 
in  faith,  but  by  admitting  him  to  the  Lord's  table, 
this  text  would  be  far  from  proving  that  which 
our  opponents  desire;  unless  they  could  make  it 
appear,  that  the  persons  of  whom  the  Apostle 
immediately  speaks,  were  not  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  when  he  gave  the  advice."^  If 
there  be  any  weight  in  this  argument  it  must  pro- 
ceed on  the. supposition,  that  if  the  persons  whom 
the  Apostle  enjoin  the  Romans  to  receive,  had 
not  been  already  members,  there  is  no  sufficient 
ground  for  believing,  notwithstanding  the  strain 
of  his  admonitions,  that  they  would  have  been  ad- 
mitted. But  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  he 
would  have  recommended  a  class  of  persons  so 
earnestly  to  the  affectionate  regards  of  a  Christian 
society  whom  he  would  not  have  previously 
deemed  eligible  to  their  communion;  or  that  the 
primitive  discipline  was  so  soon  relaxed  as  to 
occasion  the  continuance  in  the  church  of  such 
as  would  have  been  originally  deemed  unworthy 
candidates?  Most  assuredly  they  who  upon  valid 
grounds  would  have  been  rejected  if  they  had  not 
already  been  members,  were  never  permitted  to 
boast  the  protection  and  patronage  of  an  inspired 
*  Booth's  Apology,  page  82. 


121 

Apostle  after  they  became  such.  In  every  well- 
ordered  society,  the  privileges  attached  to  it  are 
forfeited  by  that  conduct  in  its  members,  what- 
ever it  be,  which  would  have  been  an  effectual 
obstacle  to  their  admission,  and  to  suppose  this 
maxim  reversed  in  a  Christian  church,  and  that 
an  Apostle  would  caress,  protect,  and  commend 
persons  who  might  justly  have  been  debarred 
from  entering,  is  an  absurdity,  which  few  minds 
can  digest.  The  necessity  of  recurring  to  such 
suppositions,  is  itself  a  sufficient  confutation  of 
the  system  they  are  brought  to  defend. 

Our  opponents  still  insist  upon  it  that  no  con- 
clusion can  be  drawn  from  the  command  to  re- 
ceive the  weak  in  faith,  unless  it  could  be  shewn 
that  they  were  wibaptized.  But  this  mode  of 
reasoning  pursued  to  its  consequences,  would 
annihilate  all  the  general  axioms  of  scripture,^ 
and  considering  the  infinite  diversity  of  human 
circumstances,  render  them  a  most  incompetent 
guide.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been  pleased  to 

*  "  But  admitting  that  to  be  a  fact,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "of 
which  there  is  not  the  least  evidence,  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  passage  would  not  be  just,  except  it  were  also 
proved,  that  the  weak  in  faith  were  unbaptized,  or  at  least 
so  considered  by  their  stronger  brethren,  for  that  is  the 
point  in  dispute  between  us." — Booth's  Jlpology,  page  104. 
11 


command  us,  without  exception,  to  receive  the 
weak  in  faith,  and  instructed  us  in  the  grounds  on 
which  his  decision  proceeded,  which  is  plainly 
the  acceptance  of  such  with  God — if  the  Apostles 
acting  under  his  direction,  goverened  the  church 
on  the  same  principles,  and  suffered  no  breach  of 
communion  to  be  effected,  but  on  account  of  a 
vicious  life,  or  fundamental  error,  the  criminality 
attached  to  an  opposite  course  of  procedure  will 
be  very  little  extenuated  by  a  circumstantial  dif- 
ference in  its  objects.  Had  those  whom  the  Apos- 
tles commanded  their  converts  to  tolerate,  been 
unbaptized,  the  inference  in  favour  of  Psedodap- 
tists  would  unquestionably  have  been  more  ob- 
vious, but  not  more  certain,  because  nothing  can 
be  more  evident  than  that  they  urged  the  duty 
of  toleration  on  a  principle  which,  even  in  the 
judgment  of  our  opponents,  equally  applies  to 
the  Psedobaptists,  which  is  that  the  error  in  each 
case  is  compatible  with  a  state  of  salvation,  and 
may  be  held  with  an  upright  conscience. 

However  systems  and  opinions  may  fluctuate, 
truth  is  eternal;  and  if  these  were  solid  grounds 
of  mutual  forbearance  and  indulgence  heretofore, 
they  must  still  continue  such;  but  if  they  were  not, 
St.  Paul  must  be  acknowledged  to  have  reasoned 
inconclusively,  and  all  idea  of  plenary  inspiration 


123 

must  be  abandoned.  As  the  case  stands,  the  ad- 
vocates of  exclusive  communion  must  either  as- 
sert, in  direct  contradiction  to  his  statement,  that 
the  compatibility  of  an  error  with  a  state  of  sal- 
vation, and  with  what  comes  nearly  to  the  same 
point,  the  perfect  sincerity  of  its  abettor,  is  not  a 
sufficient  reason  for  its  being  tolerated  in  the 
church,  or  consign  the  Paedobaptists,  who  die  in 
their  sentiments,  to  eternal  destruction.  In  this 
dilemma,  they  are  at  liberty  to  adopt  which  posi- 
tion they  please,  but  from  both  it  i  im.  ossible  to 
escape. 

In  order,  as  it  should  seem,  to  perplex  the  mind 
of  the  reader  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  our  op- 
ponents endeavour  to  confound  that  interposition 
of  mercy,  by  which  impenitent  sinners  are  intro- 
duced into  a  state  of  salvation,  with  the  gracious 
acceptance  of  believers.^ 

*  "  Yet  permit  me  to  ask,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "  is  the  di- 
vine conduct,  is  the  favour  of  God,  or  the  kindness  of  Christ 
in  receiving1  sinners,  the  rule  of  our  proceeding  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  positive  institutions?  Whom  does  God, 
whom  does  Christ  receive?  None  but  those  who  believe 
and  profess  faith  in  the  Lord  Messiah?  Our  brethren  will 
not  affirm  it.  For  if  divine  compassion  did  not  extend  to 
the  dead  in  sin;  if  the  kindness  of  Christ  did  not  relieve  the 
enemies  of  God,  none  of  our  fellow  race  would  ever  be 
saved.  But  does  it  hence  follow  that  we  must  admit  the 


124 

With  this  view  we  are  reminded  that  God  re* 
ceives  such  as  are  dead  in  sins.  Whether  it  be 
safe  to  assert  that  God  accepts  the  impenitent  at 
all,  while  their  impenitence  continues,  I  shall  not 
stay  to  inquire:  it  is  certain  they  are  not  received 
in  the  same  sense  as  genuine  Christians,  nor  in  the 
sense  the  Apostle  intended  when  he  enjoined  for- 
bearance towards  the  weak  in  faith.  That  Christ 
receives  men  in  their  sins,  so  as  to  adopt  them 
into  his  family,  and  make  them  heirs  of  eternal 
life,  is  a  doctrine  offensive  to  pious  ears,  most 
remote  from  the  language  of  scripture,  and  from 
all  sober  theology.  But  if  they  intend  something 
essentially  distinct  from  this,  for  what  purpose  it 
is  introduced,  except  with  a  view  to  shelter  them- 
selves under  the  cover  of  an  ambiguous  term,  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  In  the  meantime,  it 
is  obvious  that  the  design  of  these  contortions  is 
to  get  rid  if  possible  of  a  principle  which  origi- 
nated not  with  us,  but  with  St.  Paul,  that  we 
ought  to  accept  those  whom  v\e  acknowledge 
Christ  to  have  accepted.  This  is  still  more  evi- 

unbelieving,  or  the  unconverted,  either  to  baptism  or  the 
holy  supper?  Our  gracious  Lord  freely  accepts  all  that  de- 
sire it,  and  all  that  come,  but  are  we  bound  to  receive  every- 
one that  solicits  communion  with  us?"— Booth's 
page  106. 


125 

dent,  when  we  find  them  adducing  the  excommu- 
nication of  unworthy  members,  such  as  the  in- 
cestuous man  at  Corinth,  who  it  is  asserted  was 
all  along  an  object  of  divine  favour,  as  a  proof 
that  the  rule  which  that  inspired  writer  has  laid 
down,  may  be  safely  neglected.  In  reply  to  which, 
it  is  sufficient  to  ask — In  what  light  was  the  in- 
cestuous person  regarded,"^  when  he  declared  his 
determination  to  deliver  him  to  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh.  Was  it  under  the  cha- 
racter of  a  member  of  Christ,  or  an  enemy  to  the 
gospel?  If  we  believe  his  own  representation,  he 
deemed  it  necessary  for  him  to  be  expelled  as  an 
infectious  leaven,  the  continuance  of  which  would 
corrupt  the  whole  mass,-  so  that  whatever  proofs 
of  repentance  he  might  afterwards  exhibit,  these 
could  have  no  influence  on  the  principle  on  which 
he  was  excluded.  When  the  professors  of  Chris- 
tianity are  guilty  of  deliberate  violation  of  the 

*  "Besides,  gospel  churches,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "are 
sometimes  obliged  to  exclude  from  their  communion  those 
whom  he  has  received,  as  appears  from  the  case  of  the  in- 
cestuous person  in  the  church  of  Corinth.  And  have  those 
churches  which  practise  free  communion  never  excluded 
any  for  scandalous  backslidings,  whom  notwithstanding-, 
they  could  not  but  consider  as  received  of  Christ?" — Booth9 9 
Jlpology,  page  106. 

11* 


126 

laws  of  Christ,  they  are  to  be  treated  agreeably 
to  the  conduct  they  exhibit,  as  bad  men,  with  a 
hope  that  the  severity  of  discipline  may  reclaim 
and  restore  them  to  the  paths  of  rectitude. 

To  justify  the  practice  of  exclusive  commu* 
nion,  by  placing  Pasdobaptists,  who  form  the  great 
body  of  the  faithful,  on  the  same  level  with  men 
of  impure  and  vicious  lives,  is  equally  repugnant 
to  reason,  and  offensive  to  charity;  at  the  same 
time  that  it  is  manifest  from  this  mode  of  rea- 
soning, that  the  measure  contended  for  is  consi- 
dered in  the  light  of  punishment.  Whether  our 
Psedobaptist  brethren  are  the  proper  objects  of  it, 
or  whether  it  is  adopted  to  promote  the  only  le- 
gitimate ends  of  punishment,  must  be  left  to  fu- 
ture inquiry. 

SECTION  III. 

Pcedobaptists  a  part  of  the  true  church,  and  their 
exclusion  on  that  account  unlawful. 

BEFORE  we  proceed  to  urge  the  argument  an- 
nounced in  this  section,  it  will  be  necessary  to  as- 
certain the  precise  import  of  the  word  church,  as 
it  is  employed  in  the  holy  scriptures.  If  we  exa- 
mine the  New  Testament,  we  shall  find  that  the 


term  church,  as  a  religious  appellation,  occurs  in 
two  senses  only;  it  either  deno  s  the  whole  body 
~of  the  faithful,  or  some  one  assembly  of  Christians 
associated  for  the  worship  of  God.  In  the  former 
sense,  it  is  styled  in  the  Apostle's  creed,  catholic, 
or  universal;  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  which, 
forms  one  of  its  principal  articles.  In  this  sense, 
Jesus  Christ  is  affirmed  to  be  "  Head  over  all  things 
to  the  church,  which  is  his  body."  It  is  in  this 
collective  view  of  it,  that  we  affirm  its  perpetuity. 
When  the  term  is  employed  to  denote  a  particular 
assembly  of  Christians,  it  is  invariably  accompanied 
with  a  specification  of  the  place  where  it  was  ac- 
customed to  convene,  as  for  example,  the  church 
at  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  or  at  Rome.  Now  it  is 
manifest  from  scripture,  that  these  two  significa- 
tions of  the  word  differ  from  each  other  only  as  a 
part  differs  from  a  whole,  so  that  when  the  whole 
body  of  believers  is  intended,  it  is  used  in  its  ab- 
solute form;  when  a  particular  society  is  meant,  it 
is  joined  with  a  local  specification.  It  is  never 
used  in  the  New  Testament  as  in  modern  times, 
to  denote  the  aggregate  of  Christian  assemblies 
throughout  a  province,  or  a  kingdom;  nor  do  we 
ever  read  of  the  church  of  Achaia,  Galatia,  et  cse- 
tera,  but  of  the  churches  in  the  plural  number;  the 
word  being  constantly  applied  either  to  the  whole 
number  of  the  faithful,  scattered  throughout  the 


138 

world,  or  to  some  single  congregation  or  society. 
It  is  equally  obvious  that  whenever  the  word  church 
occurs  in  its  absolute  form,  it  comprehends  all  ge- 
nuine   Christians   without  exception,  and  as  that 
church  is  affirmed  to  be  his  body,  it  could  not  enter 
into  the  conception  of  the  inspired  writers   that 
there  were  a  class  of  persons  strictly   united   to 
Christ,  who  yet  were  none  of  its  component  parts. 
By  orthodox  Christians  it  is  uniformly  maintain- 
ed that  union  to  Christ  is  formed  by  faith,  and  as 
the  Baptists  are  distinguished  by  demanding  a  pro- 
fession of  it  at  baptism,  they  at  least  are  precluded 
from  asserting  that  rite  to  have  any  concern  in  ef- 
fecting the  spiritual  alliance  in  question.     In  their 
judgment  at  least,  since  faith  precedes  the  applica- 
tion of  water,  the  only  means  of  union  are  possess- 
ed by  the  abettors  of  infant  sprinkling  equally  with 
themselves;  who  are  therefore  equally  of  the  "body 
of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular."    But  since 
the  Holy  Ghost  identifies  that  body  with  the  church, 
explaining  the  one  by  the  other,  (u  for  his  body's 
sake,  which  is  the  church,")  it  seems  impossible  to 
deny  that  they  are  fully  entitled  to  be  considered 
in  the  catholic  sense  of  the  term,  as  members  of 
the  Christian  church.    And  as  the  universal  church 
is  nothing  more  than  the  collective  body  of  the 
faithful,  and  differs  only  from  apartictilar  assembly 
of  Christens,  as  ihe  whole  irom  a  part,  it  is  equally 


1S9 

impossible  to  deny  that  a  Psedobaptist  society  is, 
in  the  more  limited  import  of  the  word,  a  true 
church. 

If  we  consider  the  matter  in  a  light  somewhat 
different,  we  shall  be  conducted  to  the  same  con- 
clusion, and  be  compelled  to  confess  that  Psedobap- 
tist  societies  are,  or  at  least  may  be,  notwithstand- 
ing the  practice  of  infant  sprinkling,  true  churches. 
The  idea  of  plurality,  it  will  be  admitted,  adds  no- 
thing to  the  nature  of  the  object  to  which  it  is  at- 
tached. The  idea  of  a  number  of  men  differs  no- 
thing  in  kind  from  that  of  a  single  man,  except  that 
it  involves  a  repetition,  or  multiplication  of  the 
same  idea.  But  the  term  church  is  merely  a  nume- 
rical term,  denoting  a  multitude,  or  an  assembly 
of  men;  and  for  the  same  reason  that  a  number 
of  men  meeting  together  constitutes  an  assembly, 
or  church,*  in  the  most  cemprehensive  import  of 
the  word,  so  a  number  of  Christians  convened  for 
the  worship  of  God,  constitutes  a  Christian  assem- 
bly, or  a  church.  Such  an  assembly,  will  necessa- 
rily be  modified  by  the  character  of  the  mem- 
bers which  compose  it;  if  their  sentiments  are  er- 
roneous, the  church  will  proportionably  imbibe  a 
tincture  of  error;  but  to  affirm  that  though  it  con- 

*  Acts  xix.  32 — "  For  the  assembly  was  confused."   The 
original  word  is  H  twKwna.,  the  term  usually  rendered  church. 


130 

sists  of  real  Christians,  a  society  of  such  assem- 
bled for  Christian  worship  is  not  a  true  church,  is 
to  attribute  to  the  idea  of  plurality  or  of  number  the 
power  of  changing  the  nature  or  essence  of  the  ob- 
ject with  which  it  is  united,  which  involves  a  con- 
tradiction to  our  clearest  perceptions.  If  we  ad- 
here to  the  dictates  of  reason  or  of  scripture,  when 
we  give  the  appellation  of  a  church  to  a  particular 
society  of  Christians,  we  shall  mingle  nothing  in 
our  conceptions,  beyond  what  enters  into  our  ideas 
of  an  individual  Christian,  with  the  exception  of 
this  circumstance  only,  that  it  denotes  a  number 
of  such  individuals  actually  assembled,  or  wont 
to  assemble  for  the  celebration  of  divine  wor- 
ship. Though  the  definition  of  a  church  has  of- 
ten been  the  occasion  of  much  confused  disqui- 
sition, especially  when  the  term  has  been  appli- 
ed exclusively  to  the  clergy,  the  Baptists,  I  be- 
lieve, are  the  only  persons  who  have  scrupled  to 
assign  that  appellation  to  societies  acknowledged  to 
consist  of  spiritual  worshippers  a  notion  which, 
however  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of  candour,  or 
of  common  sense,  is  the  necessary  appendage  of 
the  practice,  equally  absurd,  of  confining  their  com- 
munion to  their  own  denomination. 

Having  shewn,  we  trust  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  reader,  that  psedobaptism  is  not  an  error  of 
such  magnitude,  as  to  prevent  the  society  which 


131 

maintains  it  from  being  deemed  a  true  church,  I  pro- 
ceed to  observe  that  to  repel  the  members  of  such 
a  society  from  communion,  is  the  very  essence 
of  schism.  Schism  is  a  causeless  and  unnecessary 
separation  from  the  church  of  Christ,  or  from  any 
part  of  it;  and  that  secession  cannot  urge  the  plea 
of  necessity,  where  no  concurrence  in  what  is 
deemed  evil,  no  approbation  of  error  or  supersti- 
tion, is  involved  in  communion.  In  the  case  before 
us,  by  admitting  a  Psedobaptist  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, no  sanction  whatever  is  given  to  infant-sprink- 
ling, no  act  of  concurrence  is  involved  or  implied; 
nothing  is  done,  or  left  undone,  which  would  have 
not  been  equally  so,  if  his  attendance  were  with- 
drawn. Under  such  circumstances,  the  necessity 
of  preserving  the  purity  of  worship,  or  of  avoid- 
ing an  active  co-operation  in  what  we  deem  sinful 
or  erroneous  Cthe  only  justifiable  ground  of  sepa- 
tion),  has  no  place.  The  objection  to  his  admission 
is  founded  solely  on  a  disapprobation  of  a  particu- 
lar practice  considered,  not  as  it  affects  us,  since 
no  part  of  our  religious  practice  is  influenced  by 
it,  but  in  relation  to  its  intrinsic  demerits. 

Division  amongst  Christians,  especially  when 
it  proceeds  to  a  breach  of  communion,  is  so  fraught 
with  scandal,  and  so  utterly  repugnant  to  the  ge- 
nius of  the  gospel,  that  the  suffrages  of  the  whole 
Christian  world  have  concurred  in  regarding  it  as 


132 

an  evil,  on  no  occasion  to  be  incurred,  but  for  the 
avoidance  of  a  greater — the  violation  of  conscience. 
Whenever  it  becomes  impossible  to  continue  in  a 
religious  community,  without  concurring  in  prac- 
tices, and  sanctioning  abuses,  which  the  word  of 
God  condemns,  a  secession  is  justified  by  the  apo- 
calyptic voice,  "  Come  out  of  her  my  people,  that 
ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive 
not  of  her  plagues."  On  this  principle,  the  con- 
duct of  the  Reformers  in  separating  from  the  Ro- 
man Hierarchy,  admits  of  an  ample  vindication: 
in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  superstitious 
rites  and  ceremonies,  it  became  impracticable  to 
continue  in  her  communion,  without  partaking  of 
her  sins;  and  for  a  similar  reason  the  Non-con- 
formists seceded  from  the  Church  of  England, 
where  ceremonies  were  enforced,  and  an  ecclesi- 
astical polity  established,  incompatible  as  they  con- 
ceived, with  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  the  chris- 
tian  institute.  In  each  of  these  cases,  the  blame  of 
schism  did  not  attach  to  the  separatists,  but  to  that 
spirit  of  imposition  which  rendered  such  a  mea- 
sure requisite.  In  each  instance  it  was  an  act  of 
self-preservation,  rendered  unavoidable  by  the 
highest  necessity,  that  of  declining  to  concur  in 
practices  at  which  their  conscience  revolted.  But 
what  similarity  to  this  is  discernible  in  the  conduct 
of  the  advocates  of  strict  communion?  They  are 


133 

not  engaged  in  preserving  their  own  liberty,  but  in 
an  attack  on  the  liberty  of  others;  their  object  is 
not  to  preserve  the  worship  in  which  they  join,  pure 
from  contamination;  but  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
consciences  of  their  brethren,  and  to  deny  them 
the  privilege  of  the  visible  church  on  account  of  a 
difference  of  opinion,  which  is  neither  imposed  on 
themselves,  nor  deemed  fundamental.  They  pro- 
pose to  build  a  church,  upon  the  principle  of  an 
absolute  exclusion  of  a  multitude  of  societies,  which 
they  must  either  acknowledge  to  be  true  churches, 
or  be  convicted,  as  we  have  seen,  of  the  greatest 
absurdity;  while  for  a  conduct  so  monstrous  and 
unnatural,  they  are  precluded  from  the  plea  of  ne- 
cessity, because  no  attempt  is  made  by  Paedobap- 
tists  to  modify  their  worship,  or  to  controul  the  most 
enlarged  exercise  of  private  judgment.  Upon  the 
principle  for  which  I  am  contending,  they  are  not 
called  to  renounce  their  peculiar  tenets  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  nor  to  express  their  approbation 
of  a  contrary  practice;  but  simply  not  to  sever 
themselves  from  the  body  of  Christ,  nor  refuse  to 
unite  with  his  church. 

However  familiar  the  spectacle  of  Christian  so- 
cieties who  have  no  fellowship  or  intercourse  with 
each  other  has  become,  he  who  consults  the  New 
Testament  will  instantly  perceive,  that  nothing 
more  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of  inspiration,  or  to 
12 


the  practice  of  the  first  and  purest  age,  can  be  con- 
ceived. When  we  turn  our  eyes  to  the  primitive 
times,  we  behold  one  church  of  Christ,  and  one 
only,  in  which  when  new  assemblies  of  Christians 
arose,  they  were  considered  not  as  multiplying,  but 
diffusing  it;  not  as  destroying  its  unity,  or  impair- 
ing its  harmony,  but  being  fitly  compacted  together 
on  the  same  foundation,  as  a  mere  accession  to  the 
beauty  and  grandeur  of  the  whole.  The  spouse  of 
Christ,  like  a  prolific  mother,  exulted  in  her 
numerous  offspring,  who  were  all  equally  cherish- 
ed in  her  bosom,  and  grew  up  at  her  side.  As  the 
necessity  of  departing  from  these  maxims,  or  of 
appearing  to  depart  from  them  at  least,  by  forming 
separate  societies,  arose  entirely  from  that  spirit 
of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  superstition  which 
was  gradually  developed,  so  a  similar  measure  is 
justifiable  as  far  as  that  necessity  extends,  and  no 
farther.  In  the  case  of  strict  communion,  it  has  no 
place  whatever.  In  that  case,  it  is  not  a  defensive, 
but  an  offensive  measure;  it  is  not  an  assertion  of 
Christian  liberty,  by  resisting  encroachment;  it  is 
itself  a  violent  encroachment  on  the  freedom  of 
others;  not  an  effort  to  preserve  our  own  worship 
pure,  but  to  enforce  a  conformity  to  our  views,  in 
a  point  acknowledged  not  essential  to  salvation. 
That  the  unity  of  the  church  cannot  be  maintained 
upon  those  principles,  that  if  every  error  is  to  be 


135 

opposed,  not  by  mild  remonstrance,  and  scriptural 
argument,  but  by  making  it  the  pretext  of  a  breach 
of  communion,  nothing  but  a  series  of  animosities 
and  divisions  can  ensue,  the  experience  of  past 
ages  has  rendered  sufficiently  evident.  If  amidst 
the  infinite  diversity  of  opinions,  each  society 
deems  it  necessary  to  render  its  own  peculiarities 
the  basis  of  union,  as  though  the  design  of  Chris- 
tians in  forming  themselves  into  a  church,  were  not 
to  exhibit  the  great  principles  of  the  gospel,  but  to 
give  publicity  and  effect  to  party  distinctions,  all 
hope  of  restoring  Christian  harmony  and  unanimity, 
must  be  abandoned.  When  churches  are  thus  con- 
stituted, instead  of  enlarging  the  sphere  of  Chris- 
tian charity,  they  became  so  many  hostile  confe- 
deracies. 

If  it  be  once  admitted  that  a  body  of  men  asso- 
ciating for  Christian  worship  have  a  right  to  enact 
as  terms  of  communion,  something  more  than  is 
included  in  the  terms  of  salvation,  the  question 
suggested  by  St.  Paul — u  Is  Christ  divided,"  is 
utterly  futile:  what  he  considered  as  a  solecism  is 
reduced  to  practice,  and  established  by  law.  How 
is  it  possible  to  attain  or  preserve  unanimity  in  the 
absence  of  an  intelligible  standard:  and  when  we 
feel  ourselves  at  liberty  to  depart  from  a  divine 
precedent,  and  to  affect  a  greater  nicety  and  scru- 
pulosity in  the  separation  of  the  precious  and  the 


136 

vile,  than  the  Searcher  of  Hearts;  when  we  follow 
the  guidance  of  private  partialities  and  predilec- 
tions, without  pretending  to  regulate  our  conduct 
by  the  pattern  of  our  great  Master;  who  is  at  a 
loss  to  perceive  the  absolute  impossibility  of  pre- 
serving the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace? 
Of  what  is  essential  to  salvation,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
judge:  the  quiet  of  the  conscience  requires  that  the 
information  on  this  subject  should  be  clear  and 
precise:  whatever  is  beyond,  is  involved  in  com- 
parative obscurity,  and  subject  to  doubtful  dispu- 
tation. 

There  are  certain  propositions  which  produce 
on  a  mind  free  from  prejudice  such  instantaneous 
conviction,  as  scarcely  to  admit  of  formal  proof. 
Of  this  nature  is  the  following  position,  that  it  is 
presumptuous  to  aspire  to  a  greater  purity  and 
strictness  in  selecting  the  materials  of  a  church, 
than  are  observed  by  its  divine  founder;  and  those 
whom  he  forms  and  actuates  by  his  Spirit,  and 
admits  to  communion  with  himself,  are  sufficiently 
qualified  for  the  communion  of  mortals.  What 
can  be  alleged  in  contradiction  to  a  truth  so  indu- 
bitable and  so  obvious?  Nothing  but  a  futile  dis- 
tinction (futile  in  relation  to  the  present  subject) 
betwixt  the  moral,  and  the  positive  parts,  of  Chris- 
tianity. We  are  told  again  and  again  that  the 
Lord's  supper  is  a  positive  and  arbitrary  institu- 


137 

tion,  in  consequence  of  which,  the  right  to  it  is 
not  to  be  judged  of  by  moral  considerations,  and 
general  reasonings,  but  by  express  prescription  and 
command. 

Willing  to  meet  objectors  on  their  own  ground, 
we  request  them  to  point  us  to  the  passage  in  the 
code  of  inspiration,  where  unbaptized  Christians 
are  forbidden  to  participate;  and  all  the  answer  we 
receive,  consists  merely  of  those  inferences  and 
arguments  from  analogy,  against  which  they  pro- 
test, so  that  our  opponents,  unsupported  by  the 
letter  of  scripture,  are  obliged  to  have  recourse  to 
general  reasoning,  not  less  than  ourselves,  how- 
ever lame  and  defective  that  reasoning  may  be. 

When  we  urge  them  with  the  fact  that  all  genu- 
ine Christians  are  received  by  Christ,  and  that  his 
conduct  in  this  instance  is  proposed  as  a  pattern 
for  our  imitation,  they  are  compelled  to  shift  their 
ground;  and  although  it  is  evident  to  every  one 
who  reflects  that  we  mean  to  assert  the  obligation 
of  adhering  to  that  example,  only  as  far  as  it  is 
known,  they  adduce  the  instance  of  immoral  pro- 
fessors, who  though  received,  as  they  contend,  by 
Christ,  are  justly  rejected  by  the  church.  But  how, 
we  ask,  are  we  to  ascertain  the  fact  that  such  per- 
sons are  accepted  of  Christ,  till  they  give  proof  of 
their  repentance?  Is  it  precisely  the  same  ttying  to 
neglect  a  known  rule  of  acton,  as  to  cease  to  fol- 
12  * 


138 

low  it,  when  it  is  involved  in  hopeless  obscurity? 
Admitting  for  argument's  sake  that  disorderly 
livers  have  uninterrupted  union  with  the  Saviour, 
it  is  impossible  that  we  should  know  it,  while  they 
continue  impenitent,  and  therefore,  on  such  occa- 
sions, it  ceases  to  be  a  rule.  But  in  rejecting 
Paedobaptists  in  the  mass,  they  reject  a  numerous 
class  of  Christians  whom  they  know  and  acknow- 
ledge, to  be  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  the  two 
cases  are  parallel,  we  acknowledge  the  justice  of 
the  conclusion;  if  not,  what  more  futile  and  ab- 
surd? Let  it  be  remembered,  however,  that  all  this 
quibbling  and  tergiversation,  are  employed  to  get 
rid  of  an  apostolic  canon,  and  that  they  bear  upon 
our  principles  in  no  other  sense,  than  as  they  tend 
to  nullify  or  impair  the  force  of  an  inspired  maxim. 
If  we  are  in  an  error,  we  deem  it  no  small  felicity 
to  err  in  such  company. 

Before  I  close  this  section,  I  must  be  permitted 
to  remark  an  inconsistency  in  the  conduct  of  our 
opponents,  connected  with  this  part  of  the  subject, 
which  has  often  excited  my  surprise.  Disclaim- 
ing, as  they  do,  all  communion  with  Paedobaptists, 
and  refusing  to  acknowledge  them  as  a  legitimate 
part  of  the  Christian  church,  we  should  naturally 
expect  they  would  shun  every  approach  to  such  a 
recognition  of  them  with  peculiar  care  in  devo- 
tional exercises,  in  solemn  addresses  to  the  Deity. 


139 

Nothing,  on  the  contrary,  is  more  common  than 
the  interchange  of  religious  services  betwixt  Bap- 
tists and  Independents,  in  which  the  Paedobaptist 
minister  is  solemnly  recommended  to  the  Supreme 
Being  as  the  pastor  of  the  church,  and  his  blessing 
earnestly  implored  on  the  relation  they  stand  in  to 
each  other;  nor  is  it  unusual  for  a  Baptist  to  offici- 
ate at  the  ordination  of  an  Independent  minister, 
by  delivering  a  charge,  or  inculcating  the  duties  of 
the  people,  in  a  discourse  appropriated  to  the  occa- 
sion. They  feel  no  objection  to  have  communion 
with  Paedobaptists  in  prayer  and  praise,  the  most 
solemn  of  all  acts  of  worship,  even  on  an  occasion 
immediately  connected  with  the  recognition  of  a 
religious  society;  but  no  sooner  does  the  idea  of 
the  eucharist  occur,  than  it  operates  like  a  spell,  and 
all  this  language  is  changed,  and  these  sentiments 
vanish.  It  is  surely  amusing  to  behold  a  person 
solemnly  inculcating  the  reciprocal  duties  of  a  re- 
lation, which  on  his  principles  has  no  existence; 
and  interceding  expressly  in  behalf  of  a  pastor  and 
a  church,  when  if  we  credit  his  representations  at 
other  times,  that  church  is  illegitimate,  and  the 
title  of  pastor  consequently  a  mere  usurpation. 
Although  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  ap- 
proach of  Paedobaptists  to  the  sacred  table  is  on 
their  principles  a  presumptuous  intrusion,  it  is  sel- 
dom that  the  advocates  of  strict  communion  feel 


140 

any  scruple  in  attempting,  by  devotional  exercises, 
to  prepare  the  mind  for  the  right  performance  of 
what  they  are  accustomed  to  stigmatize  as  radically 
wrong.  For  my  part,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  re- 
concile these  discrepancies.  Is  it  that  they  consider 
less  attention  to  truth,  a  less  exact  correspondence 
betwixt  the  language  and  the  sentiments,  requisite 
in  addressing  the  Deity,  than  in  discoursing  with 
their  fellow  mortals?  Or  is  it  not  more  candid  to 
suppose  that  devotion  elevates  them  to  a  higher  re- 
gion, where  they  breathe  a  freer  air,  and  look  down 
upon  the  petty  subtleties  of  a  thorny,  disputatious 
theology,  with  a  just  and  sovereign  contempt? 

SECTION  IV. 

The  exclusion  of  Pxdobaptists  from  the  Lor<Ps 
table  considered  as  a  punishment. 

THE  refusal  of  the  eucharist  to  a  professor  of 
Christianity  can  be  justified  only  on  the  ground  of 
his  supposed  criminality;  of  his  embracing  hereti- 
cal sentiments,  or  living  a  vicious  life.  As  the  sen- 
tence of  exclusion  is  the  severest  the  church  can 
inflict,  and  no  punishment  just,  but  in  proportion 
to  the  degree  of  preceding  delinquency,  it  follows 
of  course  that  he  who  incurs  the  total  privation  of 
church  privileges,  must  be  considered  eminently  in 


141 

the  light  of  an  offender.  When  the  incestuous  per- 
son was  separated  from  the  church  at  Corinth,  it 
was  regarded  hy  St.  Paul  as  a  punishment,  and  that 
of  no  ordinary  magnitude: — "  Sufficient/'  said  he, 
"  is  this  punishment,  which  was  inflicted  of  many." 
Nor  is  there  any  difference,  with  respect  to  the 
present  inquiry,  betwixt  the  refusal  of  a  candidate, 
and  the  expulsion  of  a  member;  since  nothing  will 
justify  the  former  of  these  measures,  which  might 
not  be  equally  alleged  in  vindication  of  the  latter. 
Both  amount  to  a  declaration  of  the  parties  being 
unworthy  to  communicate.  The  language  held  by 
our  opponents  is  sufficiently  decisive  on  this  head: 
• — "It  is  not  every  one,"  says  Mr.  Booth, ''that  is 
received  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  entitled  to  com- 
munion at  his  table;  but  such,  and  such  only,  as  re- 
vere his  authority,  submit  to  his  ordinances,  and 
obey  the  laws  of  his  house.""*  Hence  to  be  consist- 
ent with  themselves,  they  must  impute  to  Paedo- 
baptists  universally,  a  degree  of  delinquency  equal 
to  that  which  attaches  to  the  most  flagrant  breaches 
of  immorality;  and  deem  them  equally  guilty  in 
the  sight  of  God,  with  those  unjust  persons,  idola- 
ters, revellers,  and  extortioners,  who  are  declared 
incapable  of  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
For  if  the  guilt  imputed  in  this  instance,  is  acknow- 

*  Apology,  page  10f. 


ledged  to  be  of  a  totally  different  order  from  that 
which  belongs  to  the  openly  vicious  and  profane, 
how  come  they  to  be  included  in  the  same  sen- 
tence; and  where  is  the  equity  of  animadverting 
upon  unequal  faults,  with  equal  severity. 

To  be  consistent  also,  they  must  invariably  re- 
fuse to  tolerate  every  species  of  imperfection  in 
their  members,  which  in  their  judgment  is  equally 
criminal  with  the  Paedobaptist  error;  but  how  far 
they  are  from  maintaining  this  impartiality,  is  too 
obvious  to  admit  of  a  question.  In  churches  whose 
discipline  is  the  most  rigid,  it  will  not  be  denied 
that  many  are  tolerated,  who  are  chargeable  with 
conduct  more  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God,  than  a 
misconception  of  the  nature  of  a  positive  institute; 
nor  will  they  assert  that  a  Brainerd,  a  Doddridge, 
or  a  Leighton,  had  more  to  answer  for  at  the  su- 
preme tribunal,  on  the  score  of  infant-baptism,  than 
the  most  doubtful  of  those  imperfect  Christians, 
whom  they  retain  without  scruple  in  their  commu- 
nion. Let  them  remember  too,  that  this  reason- 
ing proceeds  not  on  the  principle  of  the  innocence 
of  error  in  general,  or  of  infant-sprinkling  in  par- 
ticular; but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  takes  for  grant- 
ed, that  some  degree  of  blame  attaches  to  a  neglect, 
though  involuntary,  of  a  positive  precept;  we  wish 
only  to  be  informed,  on  what  principle  of  equity  i 


143 

is  proposed,  in  the  infliction  of  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sures, to  equalize  things  which  are  not  equal. 

From  those  injunctions  of  St.  Paul  which  have 
already  been  distinctly  noticed,  where  he  enforces 
the  duty  of  reciprocal  toleration,  we  find  him  in- 
sisting on  certain  circumstances,  adapted  to  dimi- 
nish the  moral  estimate  of  the  errors  in  question, 
and  to  shew  that  they  involved  a  very  inconsidera- 
ble portion  of  blame,  compared  to  that  which  the 
zealots  on  either  side,  were  disposed  to  impute.— 
Such  is  the  statement  of  their  not  being  fundamen- 
tal, of  the  possibility  of  their  being  held  with  a  pure 
conscience,  and  the  certainty  that  both  parties  were 
equally  comprehended  within  the  terms  of  salva- 
tion. In  thus  attempting  to  form  an  estimate  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  mistakes  and  misconceptions  of 
our  fellow  Christians  in  a  moral  view,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  regulating  our  treatment  of  them,  we  are 
justified  by  the  highest  authority;  and  the  only  ra- 
tional inquiry  seems  to  be,  whether  infant-baptism 
is  really  more  criminal  than  those  acknowledged 
imperfections,  which  are  allowed  to  be  proper  ob- 
jects of  Christian  forbearance.  If  it  be  affirmed  that 
it  is,  we  request  our  opponents  to  reconcile  this  as- 
sertion with  the  high  encomiums  they  are  wont  to 
bestow  on  Psedobaptists,  many  of  wh  >m  they  feel 
no  hesitation  in  classing,  on  other  occasions,  with 
the  most  eminent  saints  upon  earth.  That  they  are 


perfectly  exempt  from  blame,  we  are  not  contend- 
ing; but  this  strange  combination  of  vice  and  vir- 
tue in  the  same  persons,  by  which  they  are  at  once 
justly  excluded  from  the  church  as  criminal,  and 
extolled  as  saints,  is  perfectly  incomprehensible. 
The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  attempt  to  con- 
ceal its  deformity,  by  employing  an  attenuated  and 
ambiguous  phraseology,  and  instead  of  speaking  of 
Psedobaptists  in  the  terms  their  system  demands, 
are  fond  of  applying  the  epithets,  irregular,  disor- 
derly, &c.  to  their  conduct.  Still  the  question  re- 
turns— Is  this  imputed  irregularity,  innocent,  or 
criminal?  If  the  former,  why  punish  it  at  all?  If 
the  latter,  surely  the  punishment  should  be  propor- 
tioned to  the  guilt;  and  if  it  exceed  the  measure 
awarded  to  offences  equally  aggravated,  we  must 
either  pronounce  it  unjust,  or  confound  the  distinc- 
tion of  right  and  wrong.  But  if  the  forfeiture  of 
all  the  privileges  attached  to  Christian  society,  is 
incurred  merely  by  infant-baptism,  while  numer- 
ous imperfections  both  in  sentiment  and  practice 
are  tolerated  in  the  same  church,  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  the  former  is  treated  with  more  severity 
than  the  latter.  If  it  be  more  criminal,  such  treat- 
ment is  just:  but  if  a  Doddridge  and  a  Leighton 
were  not,  even  in  the  judgment  of  our  opponents, 
necessarily  more  criminal  in  the  sight  of  God  than 
the  most  imperfect  of  those  whom  they  retain  in 


145 

their  communion,  it  is  neither  just  in  itself,  nor 
upon  their  own  principles. 

If  we  consider  the  matter  in  another  light,  the 
measure  under  consideration  will  appear  equally  in- 
capable of  vindication'.  As  it  is  unquestionably  of 
the  nature  of  punishment,  so  the  infliction  of  every 
species  of  punishment  is  out  of  place,  which  has 
no  tendency  to  reform  the  offender,  or  to  benefit 
others  by  his  example;  which  are  its  only  legiti- 
mate ends.  Whatever  is  beside  these  purposes,  is 
a  useless  waste  of  suffering,  equally  condemned  by 
the  dictates  of  reason  and  religion.  The  applica- 
tion of  this  principle  to  the  case  before  us,  is  ex- 
tremely obvious. 

I  am  far  from  thinking  lightly  of  the  spiritual 
power  with  which  Christ  has  armed  his  church.  It 
is  a  high  and  mysterious  one,  which  has  no  parallel 
on  earth.  Nothing,  in  the  order  of  means,  is  equally 
adapted  to  awaken  compunction  in  the  guilty,  with 
spiritual  censures  impartially  administered:  the  sen- 
tence of  excommunication  in  particular, harmonis- 
ing with  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  re-echoed 
by  her  voice,  is  truly  terrible:  it  is  the  voice  of 
God,  speaking  through  its  legitimate  organ,  which 
he  who  despises,  or  neglects,  ranks  with  u  heathen- 
men  and  publicans,"  joins  the  synagogue  of  Satan, 
and  takes  his  lot  with  an  unbelieving  world,  doomed 
to  perdition. — Excommunication  is  a  sword  which, 
13 


146 

strong  in  its  apparent  weakness,  and  the  sharper, 
and  more  efficacious  for  being  divested  of  all  sen- 
sible and  exterior  envelopements,  lights  immedi- 
ately on  the  spirit,  and  inflicts  a  wound  which  no 
balm  can  cure,  no  ointment  can  mollify,  but  which 
must  continue  to  ulcerate  and  burn,  till  healed  by 
the  blood  of  atonement,  applied  by  penitence  and 
prayer.  In  no  instance  is  that  axiom  more  fully  ve- 
rified, "The  weakness  of  God  is  stronger  than 
men,  and  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men," 
than  in  the  discipline  of  his  church.  By  incumber- 
ing  it  with  foreign  aid,  they  have  robbed  it  of  its 
real  strength;  by  calling  in  the  aid  of  temporal  pains 
and  penalties,  they  have  removed  it  from  the  spirit 
to  the  flesh,  from  its  contact  with  eternity,  to  unite 
it  to  secular  interests;  and  as  the  corruption  of  the 
best  things,  is  the  worst,  have  rendered  it  the 
scandal  and  reproach  of  our  holy  religion. 

While  it  retains  its  character,  as  a  spiritual  ordi- 
nance, it  is  the  chief  bulwark  against  the  disorders 
which  threaten  to  overturn  religion,  the  very  nerve 
of  virtue,  and  next  to  the  preaching  of  the  cross, 
the  principal  antidote  to  the  u  corruptions  that  are 
in  the  world  through  lust."  Discipline  in  a  church 
occupies  the  place  of  laws  in  a  state;  and  as  a  king- 
dom, however  excellent  its  constitution,  will  inev- 
itably sink  into  a  state  of  extreme  wretchedness,  ia 
which  laws  are  either  not  enacted,  or  not  duly  ad- 


ministered;  so  a  church  which  pays  no  attention  to 
discipline,  will  either  fall  into  confusion,  or  into  a 
state  so  much  worse,  that  little  or  nothing  will  re- 
main worth  regulating.  The  right  of  inflicting  cen- 
sures, and  of  proceeding  in  extreme  cases  to  ex- 
communication, is  an  essential  branch  of  that  pow- 
er with  which  the  church  is  endowed,  and  bears 
the  same  relation  to  discipline  that  the  administra- 
tion of  criminal  justice,  bears  to  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  government.  When  this  right  is  exerted  in 
upholding  the  "  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints," 
or  enforcing  a  conscientious  regard  to  the  laws  of 
Christ  it  maintains  its  proper  place,  and  is  highly 
beneficial.  Its  cognizance  of  doctrine  is  justified 
by  apostolic  authority:  "  a  heretic  after  two  or  three 
admonitions  reject;'*  nor  is  it  to  any  purpose  to  urge 
the  difference  betwixt  ancient  heretics  and  modern, 
or  that  to  pretend  to  distinguish  truth  from  error 
is  a  practical  assumption  of  infallibility.  While  the 
truth  of  the  gospel  remains,  a  fundamental  contra- 
diction to  it  is  possible,  and  the  difficulty  of  deter- 
mining what  is  so,  must  be  exactly  proportioned 
to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  import  of  re- 
velation, which  he  who  affirms  to  be  insurmounta- 
ble, ascribes  to  it  such  an  obscurity  as  must  defeat 
its  primary  purpose. 

He  who  contends  that  no  agreement  in  doctrine 
is  essential  to  communion,  must,  if  he  understand 


148 

himself,  either  mean  to  assert  that  Christianity  con- 
tains no  fundamental  truths,  or  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  a  member  of  a  church  should  be  a  Chris- 
tian. The  first  of  these  positions  sets  aside  the  ne- 
cessity of  faith  altogether;  the  last  is  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms.  For  these  reasons,  it  is  required 
that  the  operation  of  discipline  should  extend  to 
speculative  errors,  no  less  than  to  practical  enor- 
mities. But  since  it  is  not  pretended  that  Paedo- 
baptists  are  heretics,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  not 
subject  to  the  cognizance  of  the  church,  under  that 
character.  As  they  differ  from  us  merely  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  a  particular  precept,  while  they  avow 
the  same  deference  to  the  legislator;  the  proper 
antidote  to  their  error  is  calm,  dispassionate  argu- 
ment, not  the  exercise  of  power.  Let  us  present 
the  evidence  on  which  our  practice  is  grounded,  to 
the  greatest  advantage,  to  which  the  display  of  a 
conciliating  spirit  will  contribute  more  than  a  little; 
but  to  proceed  with  a  high  hand,  and  attempt  to 
terminate  the  dispute  by  authority,  involves  an  ut- 
ter misconception  of  the  true  nature  and  object  of 
discipline,  which  is  never  to  decide  what  is  doubt- 
ful, or  to  elucidate  what  is  obscure,  but  to  promul- 
gate the  sentence  which  the  immutable  laws  of 
Christ  have  provided,  with  the  design  in  the  first 
place,  of  exciting  compunction  in  the  breast  of  the 
offender,  and  next  of  profiting  others  by  his  exam- 


149 

pie.  The  solemn  decision  of  a  Christian  assembly, 
that  an  individual  has  forfeited  his  right  to  spirit- 
ual privileges,  and  is  henceforth  consigned  to  the 
kingdom  of  Satan,  is  an  awful  proceeding,  only  in- 
ferior in  terror,  to  the  sentence  of  the  last  day, 

But  what  is  it  which  renders  it  so  formidable? 
It  is  its  accordance  with  the  moral  nature  of  man, 
its  harmony  with  the  dictates  of  conscience,  which 
gives  it  all  its  force.  When,  on  the  contrary,  the 
pious  inquirer  is  satisfied  with  his  own  conduct, 
viewing  it  with  approbation  and  complacency; 
when  he  is  fortified,  as  in  the  present  instance,  by 
the  example  of  a  great  majority  of  the  Christian 
world,  who  are  ready  to  receive  him  with  open 
arms,  and  to  applaud  him  for  the  very  practice 
which  has  provoked  it,  how  vain  is  it  to  expect  that 
his  exclusion  from  a  particular  church,  will  operate 
a  change?  when  he  learns  too,  that  his  supposed  er- 
ror is  not  pretended  to  be  fatal,  but  such  as  may 
be  held  with  a  good  conscience,  and  with  faith  un- 
feigned, and  is  actually  held  by  some  of  the  best 
of  men,  it  is  easy  to  foresee  what  sentiments  he 
will  feel  towards  the  authors  of  such  a  measure, 
and  how  little  he  will  be  prepared  to  examine  im- 
partially the  evidence  of  that  particular  opinion, 
which  has  occasioned  it.  Such  a  proceeding,  not 
having  the  remotest  tendency  to  inform,  or  to 
alarm  the  conscience,  is  ineffectual  to  every  pur- 
13* 


150 

pose  of  discipline;  and  as  it  professedly  comprises 
nothing  of  the  nature  of  argument,  no  light  can 
be  derived  from  it,  towards  the  elucidation  of  a 
controverted  question.  It  interposes  by  authority, 
instead  of  reason,  where  authority  can  avail  no- 
thing, and  reason  is  all  in  all:  and  while  it  is  con- 
temptible as  an  instrument  employed  to  compel 
unanimity,  its  power  of  exciting  prejudice  and 
disgust  is  unrivalled.  Such  are  the  mischiefs  re- 
sulting from  confounding  together  the  provinces 
of  discipline  and  of  argument;  and  since  the  prac- 
tice which  we  have  ventured  to  oppose,  if  it 
have  any  meaning,  is  intended  to  operate  as  a 
punishment,  without  answering  one  of  the  ends 
for  which  it  is  inflicted,  it  is  high  time  it  were  con- 
signed to  oblivion. 

There  is  another  consideration  sufficiently  re- 
lated to  the  part  of  the  subject  before  us,  to  justify 
my  introducing  it  here,  as  I  would  wish  to  avoid 
the  unnecessary  multiplication  of  divisions.  What- 
ever criminality  attaches  to  the  practice  of  free 
communion,  must  entirely  consist  in  sanctioning 
the  improper  conduct  of  the  parties  with  whom  we 
unite;  and  if  it  be  wrong  to  join  with  Psedobaptists 
at  the  Lord's  table,  it  must  be  still  more  so  in  them 
to  celebrate  it.  When  an  action  allowed  in  itself 
to  be  innocent  or  commendable,  becomes  improper, 
as  performed  in  conjunction  with  another,  that  im- 


151 

propriety  must  result  solely  from  the  moral  incom- 
petence to  that  action,  of  the  party  associated.  Thus 
in  the  instance  before  us,  it  must  be  assumed  that 
Peecjobaptists  are  morally  culpable  in  approaching 
the  sacred  symbols,  or  the  attempt  to  criminate  us 
for  sanctioning  them  in  that  practice,  would  be  ri- 
diculous. As  it  is  allowed  that  every  baptized  be- 
liever not  only  may  partake,  but  ought  to  partake, 
of  that  spiritual  repast,  his  uniting  with  Psedobap- 
tists  on  that  occasion,  is  liable*  to  objection  on  no 
other  ground  than  that  it  may  be  considered  as  in- 
timating his  approbation  of  their  conduct  in  that 
particular.  Upon  the  principles  of  our  opponents 
their  approach  is  not  only  sinful,  but  sinful  to  such 
a  degree,  as  to  communicate  a  moral  taint  to  what, 
in  other  circumstances,  would  be  deemed  an  act  of 
obedience.  Here  the  first  question  that  arises  is 
— Are  the  advocates  of  infant-baptism  criminal 
in  approaching  the  Lord's  table? 

Be  it  remembered,  that  our  controversy  with 
them  respects  the  ordinance  of  baptism  only,  which 
we  suppose  them  to  have  misconceived,  and  that 
it  has  no  relation  to  the  only  remaining  positive  in- 
stitute. Believing,  as  many  of  them  unquestiona- 
bly do,  that  they  are  as  truly  baptized  as  ourselves, 
and  there  being  no  controversy  betwixt  us  on  the 
subject  of  the  eucharist,  it  is  impossible  for  them, 
even  on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  to  enter- 


152 

tain  the  least  scruple  respecting  the  obligation  of 
attending  to  that  ordinance.  Admitting  it  possible 
for  them  to  believe  what  they  uniformly  and  inva- 
riably profess,  they  cannot  fail  of  being  fully  con- 
vinced, that  it  is  their  duty  to  communicate.  Under 
these  circumstances  ought  they  to  communicate,  or 
ought  they  not?  If  we  answer  in  the  negative,  we 
must  affirm  that  men  ought  not  to  pursue  that  course 
which,  after  the  most  mature  deliberation,  the  un- 
hesitating dictates. of  conscience  suggest;  which 
would  go  to  obliterate  and  annul  the  only  immedi- 
ate rule  of  human  action.  Nor  can  it  be  objected 
with  truth,  that  the  tendency  of  this  reasoning  is  to 
destroy  the  absolute  difference  betwixt  right  and 
wrong,  by  referring  all  to  conscience.  That  apart 
from  human  judgments,  there  is  an  intrinsic,  moral 
difference  in  actions  we  freely  admit,  and  hence  re- 
sults the  previous  obligation  of  informing  the  mind, 
by  a  diligent  attention  to  the  dictates  of  reason  and 
religion,  and  of  delaying  to  act  till  we  have  sufficient 
light;  but  in  entire  consistence  with  this,  we  affirm, 
that  where  there  is  no  hesitation,  the  criterion  of 
immediate  duty  is  the  suggestion  of  conscience; 
whatever  guilt  may  have  been  previously  incurred, 
by  the  neglect  of  serious  and  impartial  inquiry. 
That  this,  under  the  modifications  already  specified, 
is  the  only  criterion,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the 
impossibility  of  conceiving  any  other.  If  it  lead 


153 

(as  it  easily  may,  from  the  neglect  of  the  previous 
inquiry  already  mentioned)  to  a  deviation  from  ab- 
solute rectitude,  we  must  not  concur  in  the  action 
in  which  such  deviation  is  involved. 

To  apply  these  principles  to  the  case  before  us. 
Whatever  blame  we  may  be  disposed  to  attribute 
to  the  abettors  of  infant-baptism,  on  the  score  of 
previous  inattention,  or  prejudice,  as  there  is  no- 
thing in  their  principles  to  cause  them  to  hesitate 
respecting  the  obligation  of  the  eucharist,  it  is  un- 
questionably their  immediate  duty  to  celebrate  it, 
they  would  be  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  wilful  of- 
fence were  they  to  neglect  it.  And  as  it  is  their  du- 
ty to  act  thus,  in  compliance  with  the  dictates 
of  conscience,  we  cannot  be  guiltv  of  sanctioning 
what  is  evil  in  them,  by  the  approbation  implied  in 
joint  participation.  As  far  as  they  are  concerned, 
the  case  seems  clear;  and  no  sanction  is  given  to 
criminal  conduct.  It  remains  to  be  considered  only 
how  the  action  is  situated  with  respect  to  ourselves; 
and  here  the  decision  is  sull  more  easy,  for  the  ac- 
tion to  which  we  are  invited  is  not  only  consistent 
with  rectitude,  but  would  be  allowed  by  all  parties 
to  be  an  instance  of  obedience,  but  for  the  con- 
currence of  Paedobaptists. — Thus  much  may  suf- 
fice in  answer  to  the  first  question,  respecting  the 
supposed  criminality  of  the  act  of  communion  as 
performed  by  the  advocates  of  infant-baptism:  a 


criminality  which  must  be  assumed  as  the  sole  basis 
of  the  charges  adduced  against  the  practice  we  are 
defending. 

When  we  reflect  that  the  whole  of  our  opponents' 
reasoning  turns  upon  the  disqualification  of  Paedo- 
baptists  for  the  Lord's  supper  it  is  surprising  that 
we  rarely,  if  ever,  find  them  contemplate  the  sub- 
ject in  that  light,  or  advert  to  the  criminality  of 
breaking  down  that  sacred  inclosure.  The  subor- 
dinate agents  are  severely  censured,  the  principal 
offenders  scarcely  noticed:  and  if  my  reader  be  dis- 
posed to  gratify  his  curiosity  by  making  a  collec- 
tion of  all  the  uncandid  strictures  which  have  been 
passed  upon  the  advocates  of  psedobaptism,  it  is 
more  than  probable  the  charge  of  profaning  the 
Lord's  supper,  would  not  be  found  among  the  num- 
ber. Yet  this  is  the  original  sin;  this  the  epidemic 
evil,  as  widely  diffused  as  the  existence  of  psedo- 
baptist  communities:  and  if  it  be  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  attach  a  portion  of  guilt  to  whatever  comes 
into  contact  with  it;  it  must,  considering  its  exten- 
sive prevalence,  be  one  of  the  most  crying  enormi- 
ties. It  is  an  evil  which  has  spread  much  wider 
than  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass:  it  is  a  pollution 
which  (with  the  exception  of  one  sect  only),  at- 
taches to  all  flesh,  and  is  unblushing!)  avowed  by 
the  professors  of  Christianity  in  every  part  of  the 
universe.  And  what  is  most  surprising,  the  only 


155 

persons  who  have  discovered  it,  instead  of  lifting 
up  their  voice,  maintain  a  profound  silence;  and 
while  they  are  sufficiently  liberal  in  their  censures 
on  the  popular  error  respecting  baptism,  are  not 
heard  to  breathe  a  murmur  against  this  erroneous 
abuse.  In  truth  they  are  so  little  impressed  with  it, 
that  they  decline  urging  it  even  where  the  mention 
of  it  would  seem  unavoidable.  When  they  are  re- 
buking us  for  joining  with  our  Paedobaptist  brethren 
in  partaking  of  a  sacrament  for  which  they  are  sup- 
posed to  want  the  due  qualifications,  it  is  not  their 
presumption  in  approaching  on  which  they  insist, 
as  might  be  reasonably  expected;  on  that  subject 
they  are  silent,  while  they  vehemently  inveigh 
against  the  imaginary  countenance  we  afford  to 
the  neglect  of  baptism.  Thus  they  persist  in  con- 
struing our  conduct,  not  into  an  approval  of  that  act 
of  communion  in  which  we  are  engaged,  but  into 
a  tacit  admission  of  the  validity  of  infant-baptism, 
against  which  we  are  known  to  remonstrate.  In 
short,  they  are  disposed  to  attack  our  practice  in  any 
point,  rather  than  in  that  which,  if  we  are  wrong, 
it  is  alone  vulnerable,  that  of  its  being  an  expres- 
sion of  our  approbation  of  Psedobaptists  celebrat- 
ing the  eucharist.  In  the  same  spirit,  when  they 
have  once  procured  the  exclusion  of  the  obnoxious 
party  from  their  assemblies,  they  are  completely 
satisfied;  their  communion  elsewhere  gives  them 


156 

no  concern,  though  it  must  be  allowed,  on  the  sup- 
position of  the  pretended  disqualification,  that  the 
evil  remains  in  its  full  force.  Nor  are  they  ever 
known  to  remonstrate  with  them  on  this  irregula- 
rity during  its  continuance;  nor,  should  they  after- 
terwards  become  converts  to  our  doctrine,  to  recal 
it  to  their  attention,  with  a  view  to  excite  compunc- 
tion and  remorse;  so  that  this  is  perhaps  the  only 
sin  for  which  men  are  never  called  to  repentance, 
and  of  which  no  man  has  been  known  to  repent. 
When  our  Lord  dismissed  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  though  he  did  not  proceed  to  judge  her, 
he  solemnly  charged  her  to  sin  no  more:  the  advo- 
cates for  strict  communion,  when  they  dismiss  Pse- 
dobaptists,  give  them  no  such  charge;  their  lan- 
guage seems  to  be — u  Go,  sin  by  yourselves,  and 
we  are  satisfied.'5 

The  inference  I  would  deduce  from  these  re- 
markable facts  is,  that  they  possess  an  internal  con- 
viction that  the  class  of  Christians  whom  they  pro- 
scribe, would  be  guilty  of  a  great  impropriety  in 
declining  to  communicate  in  the  sacramental  ele- 
ments; and  that  the  union  of  Baptists  with  them 
in  that  solemnity,  so  far  from  being  liable  to  the 
imputation  of  "  partaking  in  other  men's  sins,"  is 
not  only  lawful,  but  commendable. 


157 


SECTION  V. 

On  the  impossibility  of  reducing  the  practice  of  strict 
communion  to  any  general  principle. 

WHEN  a  particular  branch  of  conduct  is  so  cir- 
cumstanced, as  to  be  incapable  of  being  deduced 
from  some  general  rule,  or  of  being  resolved  into 
some  comprehensive  principle,  founded  on  reason, 
or  revelation,  we  may  be  perfectly  assured,  it  is 
not  obligatory.  Whatever  is  matter  of  duty,  is  a 
part  of  some  whole,  the  relation  to  which  is  sus- 
ceptible of  proof,  either  by  the  express  decision  of 
scripture,  or  by  general  reasoning;  and  a  point  of 
practice  perfectly  insulated,  and  disjointed  from 
the  general  system  of  duties,  whatever  support  it 
may  derive  from  prejudice,  custom  or  caprice,  can 
never  be  satisfactorily  vindicated.  From  want  of 
attention  to  this  axiom,  both  the  world  and  the 
church  have  in  different  periods,  been  overrun 
with  innumerable  forms  of  superstition  and  folly; 
to  which  the  only  effectual  antidote  is,  an  appeal  to 
principles.  Unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  the  ques- 
tion under  discussion  will  afford  a  striking  exem- 
plification of  the  justness  of  this  remark.  If  it  be 
found  impossible  to  fix  a  medium  betwixt  the  tole- 
14 


158 

ration  of  all  opinions  in  religion,  and  the  restric- 
tion of  it,  to  errors  not  fundamental,  the  practice 
of  exclusive  communion  must  be  abandoned,  be- 
cause it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  attempt 
to  establish  such  a  medium.  By  errors  not  funda- 
mental, I  mean  such  as  are  admitted  to  consist  with 
a  state  of  grace  and  salvation;  such  as  are  not  sup- 
posed to  prevent  their  abettors  from  being  accept- 
ed of  God. — With  such  as  contend  for  the  indis- 
criminate admission  of  all  doctrines  on  the  one 
hand,  or  with  the  abettors  of  rigid  uniformity,  who 
allow  no  latitude  of  sentiment  on  the  other,  we 
have  no  concern:  since  we  concur  with  our  oppo- 
nents in  deprecating  both  these  extremes;  and  while 
we  are  tenacious  of  the  u  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,*5 
we  both  admit  that  some  indulgence  to  the  mis- 
takes and  imperfections  of  the  truly  pious  is  due, 
from  a  regard  to  the  dictates  of  inspiration  and 
the  nature  of  man.  The  only  subject  of  controversy 
is,  how  far  that  forbearance  is  to  be  extended:  we 
assert  to  every  diversity  of  judgment,  not  incom- 
patible with  salvation;  they  contend  that  a  differ*- 
ence  of  opinion  on  baptism  is  an  excepted  case.— - 
If  the  word  of  God  had  clearlv  and  unequivocally 
made  this  exception,  we  should  feel  ourselves 
bound  to  admit  it,  upon  the  same  principle  on 
which  we  maintain  the  infallible  certainty  of  rcve- 


159 

lation;  but  when  we  press  for  this  decision,  and 
request  to  be  directed  to  the  part  of  scripture 
which  for  ever  prohibits  unbaptized  persons  from 
approaching  the  sacrament,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  Jews  were  prohibited  from  celebrating  the  pass- 
over,  who  had  not  submitted  to  circumcision,  we 
meet  with  no  reply  but  precarious  inferences,  and 
general  reasoning. 

However  plausible  their  mode  of  arguing  may 
appear,  the  impartial  reader  will  easily  perceive  it 
fails  m  the  main  point;  which  is  to  establish  that 
specific  difference  betwixt  the  case  they  except  out 
of  their  list  of  tolerated  errors,  and  those  which 
they  admit,  which  shall  justify  this  opposite  treat- 
ment. Thus  when  they  ask  whether  God  has  not 
"commanded  baptism;  whether  it  is  not  the  be- 
liever's duty  to  be  found  in  it;"*  it  is  manifest 
that  the  same  reasons  might  be  urged  against  bear- 
ing with  any  imperfection  in  our  fellow-christian 
whatever;  for  which  of  these,  we  ask,  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  some  command,  and  a  violation,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  of  some  duty;  with  this  dif- 
ference indeed,  that  many  of  the  imperfections 
which  Christian  churches  are  necessitated  to  bear 
with,  are  seated  in  the  will,  while  the  case  before 
us  involves  merely  an  unintentional  mistake.  "  It 

*  Booth's  Apology,  page  128. 


160 

is  not  everyone/5  says  Mr.  Booth,  "that  is  re- 
ceived of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  entitled  to  commu- 
nion at  his  table;  but  such,  andonly  such,  as  revere 
his  authority,  submit  to  his  ordinances,  and  obey 
the  laws  of  his  house."  This  is  the  most  formal 
attempt  which  that  writer  has  made  to  specify  the 
difference  betwixt  the  case  of  the  abettors  of  in- 
fant-baptism, and  others;  for  which  reason,  the 
reader  will  excuse  my  directing  his  attention  to  it 
for  a  few  moments.  We  are  indebted  to  him,  in 
the  first  place,  for  a  new  discovery  in  theology:  we 
should  not  have  suspected,  but  for  his  assertion, 
that  there  could  be  a  description  of  persons  whom 
Christ  has  received,  who  neither  revere  his  autho- 
rity, submit  to  his  ordinances,  nor  obey  his  laws. 
—How  Mr.  Booth  acquired  this  information  we 
know  not;  but  certainly  in  our  Saviour's  time  it 
was  otherwise.  "Then  are  ye  my  disciples,"  said 
he,  "  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you."  I  congratulate  the  public  on  the  prudence 
evinced  by  the  venerable  author,  in  not  publishing 
the  names  of  these  highly  privileged  individuals, 
who  have  proved  their  title  to  heaven,  to  his  satis- 
faction, without  reverence,  submission,  or  obedi- 
ence; wishing  his  example  had  been  imitated  in 
this  particular  by  the  authors  of  the  wonderful 
conversions  of  malefactors,  many  of  whom  I  fear 
belong  to  this  new  sect. 


161 

This  singular  description,  however,  I  scarcely 
need  remind  the  reader,  is  designed  to  charac- 
terise Baptists  in  opposition  to  Psedobaptists;  and 
were  it  not  the  production  of  a  man  whom  I  highly 
revere,  I  should  comment  upon  it  with  the  severity 
it  deserves.  Suffice  it  to  remark,  that  to  mistake 
the  meaning  of  a  statute,  is  one  thing,  not  to  re- 
verence the  legislator,  another;  that  he  cannot  sub- 
mit with  a  good  conscience  to  an  ordinance,  who  is 
not  apprised  of  its  existence;  and  that  a  blind  obe- 
dience, even  to  divine  laws,  would  be  far  from 
constituting  a  reasonable  service.  Every  conscien- 
tious adherent  to  infant-baptism  reveres  the  au- 
thority of  Christ,  not  less  than  a  Baptist,  and  is  dis- 
tinguished by  a  spirit  of  submission  and  obedience 
to  every  known  part  of  his  will;  and  as  this  is  all 
to  which  a  Baptist  can  pretend,  and  far  more  thau 
many  who  without  scruple  are  tolerated  in  our 
churches,  can  boast;  we  are  as  far  as  ever  from  as- 
certaining the  specif  c  difference  betwixt  the  case 
of  the  Paedobaptist,  and  other  instances  of  error 
supposed  to  be  entitled  to  indulgence.  In  spite  of 
Mr.  Booth's  marvellous  definition,  reverence,  sub- 
mission, and  obedience,  are  such  essential  features 
in  the  character  of  a  Christian,  that  he  who  was 
judged  to  be  destitute  of  them,  in  their  substance 
and  reality,  would  instantly  forfeit  that  character; 
while  to  possess  them  in  perfection,  is  among  the 


tes 

brightest  acquisitions  of  eternity.  It  should  be  re* 
inembered  too,  that  the  general  principles  of  mo- 
rality are  not  less  the  laws  of  Christ,  than  positive 
rites,  and  if  we  credit  Prophets  and  Apostles,  much 
to  be  preferred  in  comparison;  so  that  it  must  be 
ackaowledged  that  he  who  is  deficient  in  attention 
to  these,  while  he  is  more  exemplary  in  discharg* 
ing  the  former  than  a  baptized  Christian,  (a  very 
frequent  case,)  stands  higher  in  the  scale  of  obe- 
dience. So  equivocal  is  the  line  of  separation  here 
attempted. 

When  the  necessity  of  tolerating  imperfection  is 
once  admitted,  there  remains  no  point  at  which  it 
can  consistently  stop,  till  it  is  extended  to  every 
gradation  of  error,  the  habitual  maintenance  of 
which  is  compatible  with  a  state  of  salvation.  The 
reason  is,  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  define 
that  species  of  error,  so  situated  as  not  to  preclude 
its  possessor  from  divine  acceptance,  although  it 
forfeits  his  title  to  the  full  exercise  of  Christian 
charity.  The  Baptists  who  contend  for  confining 
the  Lord's  supper  to  themselves,  imagine  they  have 
found  such  an  error  in  the  practice  of  initiating  in- 
fants into  the  Christian  church.  But  it  is  observa- 
ble that  they  can  reduce  it  to  no  class,  nor  define  it 
by  any  general  idea;  and  when  we  urge  them  with 
the  apostolic  injunction,  to  bear  with  each  other's 
infirmities,  they  have  nothing  to  reply,  but  merely 


163 

that  St.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  baptism,  which 
is  true,  because  one  thing  is  not  another:  but  it 
Lehoves%  them  to  shew  that  the  principle  he  estab- 
lishes does  not  include  this  case,  and  here  they  are 
silent. 

If  we  impartially  examine  the  reasons  on  which 
we  rest  the  toleration  of  any  supposed  error,  we 
shall  find  they  invariably  coincide  with  the  idea  of 
its  not  being  fundamental. — If  it  be  alleged,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  error  in  question  relates  to  a  sub- 
ject less  clearly  revealed  than  some  others,  what  is 
this  but  to  insinuate  the  ease  with  which  an  honest 
inquirer  may  mistake  respecting  it?  If  the  little 
practical  influence  it  is  likely  to  exert,  is  alleged  as 
a  plea  for  forbearance,  the  force  of  such  a  remark 
rests  entirely  on  the  assumption  of  an  indissoluble 
connection  betwixt  a  state  of  salvation,  and  a  cer- 
tain character,  which  the  opinion  in  question  is 
supposed  not  to  destroy.  If  we  allege  the  example 
of  eminently  pious  men,  who  have  embraced  it, 
we  infer  from  analogy  the  actual  safety  of  the  per- 
son by  whom  it  is  held;  and  in  short,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  construct  an  argument  for  the  exercise  of 
mutual  forbearance,  but  what  proceeds  upon  this 
principle;  a  principle  which  pervades  the  reasoning 
of  our  opponents  on  every  other  occasion,  except 
this  of  strict  communion,  which  they  make  an  in- 
sulated  case,  capriciously  exempting  it  from  thear- 


bitration  of  all  the  general  rules  of  scripture,  as 
well  as  from  the  maxims  to  which,  in  all  other  in- 
stances, they  are  attached. 

Reluctant  as  I  feel  to  trespass  on  the  patience  of 
the  reader,  by  unnecessarily  prolonging  the  discus- 
sion, I  am  anxious  if  possible  to  set  the  present  ar» 
gument  in  a  still  stronger  light.  I  observe,  there^- 
fore,  that  if  it  be  contended  that  a  certain  opinion 
is  so  obnoxious  as  to  justify  the  exclusion  of  its 
abettor  from  the  privilege  of  Christian  fellowship, 
it  must  be  either  on  account  of  its  involving  a  con- 
tradiction to  the  saving  truth  of  the  gospel,  or  on 
account  of  its  injurious  effects  on  the  character. 
As  those  of  our  brethren  to  whom  this  reasoning 
is  addressed,  positively  disclaim  considering  in- 
fant-baptism in  the  former  light,  they  will  not  at- 
tempt to  vindicate 'the  exclusion  of  Psedobaptists  on 
that  ground.  In  vindication  of  such  a  measure, 
they  must  allege  the  injurious  effects  it  produces 
on  the  character  of  its  abettors.  Here,  however^ 
they  have  precluded  themselves  from  the  possibi- 
lity of  urging  that  the  injury  sustained  is  fatal,  by 
the  previous  concession  that  it  does  not  involve  a 
contradiction  to  saving  truth.  Could  they,  without 
cancelling  that  concession,  urge  ihe  fatal  nature  of 
the  influence  in  question,  they  would  present  an  ob- 
ject to  the  mind  sufficiently  precise  and  determinate; 
an  object  which  may  be  easily  conceived,  and  accu- 


165 

rately  defined.  But  as  things  are  now  situated,  they 
can  at  most  only  insist  on  such  a  kind  and  degree 
of  deteriorating  effect  as  is  consistent  with  the 
spiritual  safety  of  the  party  concerned;  and  as 
they  are  among  the  first  to  contend  that  every  spe- 
cies of  error  is  productive  of  injurious  effects,  it 
is  incumbent  upon  them  to  point  out  some  conse- 
quences worse  in  their  kind,  or  more  aggravated 
in  degree,  resulting  from  this  particulai  error,  than 
what  may  be  fairly  ascribed  10  the  \vorst  of  those 
erroneous  or  defective  views  which  they  are  ac- 
customed to  tolerate.  These  injurious  consequences 
must  also  occupy  an  intermediate  place  between 
two  extremes;  they  must,  on  the  one  hand,  be  de- 
cidedly more  serious  than  can  be  supposed  to  re- 
sult from  the  most  crude,  undigested,  or  discor- 
dant views,  tolerated  in  regular  Baptist  churches, 
yet  not  of  such  a  nature  on  the  other,  as  to  involve 
the  danger  of  eternal  perdition.  Let  them  specify, 
if  it  be  in  their  power,  that  ill  influence  on  the  char- 
acter which  is  the  natural  consequence  of  the  tenet 
of  infant-sprinkling,  considered  per  se  or  indepen- 
dent of  adventitious  circumstances  and  the  opera- 
tion of  accidental  causes,  which  justifies  a  treat- 
ment of  its  patrons,  so  different  from  what  is  given 
to  the  abettors  of  other  errors.  This  malignant  in- 
fluence must,  I  repeat  it,  be  the  natural  or  necessa- 
ry product  of  the  practice  of  psedobaptism;  because 


166 

the  simple  avowal  of  this  is  deemed  sufficient  to 
incur  the  forfeiture  of  church  privileges,  without 
further  time  or  inquiry.  However  vehemently 
the  supporters  of  such  a  measure  may  declaim 
against  it,  or  however  triumphantly  expose  the 
principles  on  which  it  is  founded,  they  have  done 
nothing  towards  accomplishing  their  object — the 
vindication  of  strict  communion;  since  the  same 
mode  of  proceeding  might  be  adopted  towards  any 
other  misconception,  or  erroneous  opinion;  and  if 
it  may  be  forcibly  expelled,  as  soon  as  it  is  confuted, 
there  is  an  end  to  toleration.  Toleration  has  no  place, 
but  in  the  presence  of  acknowledged  imperfection. 
It  is  absolutely  necessary  for  them,  as  they  would 
vindicate  their  conduct  to  the  satisfaction  of  reason- 
able men,  to  prove  that  some  specific  deteriorating 
effect  results  from  the  practice  of  infant-baptism, 
distinct  from  the  malignant  influence  of  error  in 
general,  and  of  those  imperfections  in  particular 
which  are  not  inconsistent  with  salvation. 

Though  the  opposition  betwixt  truth  and  error 
is  equal  in  all  cases,  and  the  former  always  suscep- 
tible of  proof,  as  well  as  the  latter  of  confutation; 
all  error  is  not  opposed  to  the  same  truths;  and 
hence  arises  a  distinction  betwixt  such  erroneous 
and  imperfect  views  of  religion  as,  however  they 
may  in  their  remoter  consequences  impair,  do  not 
contradict  the  gospel  testimony,  and  such  as  do. 


167 

We  lay  this  distinction  as  the  basis  of  that  forbear- 
ance towards  the  mistakes  and  imperfections  of 
good  men  for  which  we  plead;  and  as  the  case  of 
our  Pasdobaptist  brethren  is  clearly  comprehended 
within  that  distinction,  feel  no  scruple  in  admitting 
them  to  Christian  fellowship.  We  are  attached  to 
that  distinction  because  it  is  both  scriptural  and  in- 
telligible; while  the  hypothesis  of  the  strict  Bap- 
tists, as  they  style  themselves,  is  so  replete  with 
perplexity  and  confusion,  that  for  my  part  I  abso- 
lutely despair  of  comprehending  it.  It  proceeds 
upon  the  supposition  of  a  certain  medium  between 
two  extremes  which  they  have  not  even  attempted 
to  fix:  and  as  the  necessary  consequence  of  this, 
their  reasoning,  if  we  chuse  to  term  it  such,  floats 
and  undulates  in  such  a  manner,  that  it  is  extreme- 
ly difficult  to  grasp  it.  On  the  pernicious  influence 
of  error  in  general  we  entertain  no  doubt,  but  we 
demand  again  and  again  to  have  that  precise  inju- 
rious effect  of  infant-sprinkling  pointed  out  and 
evinced,  which  is  more  to  be  deprecated,  than  the 
probable  result  of  those  acknowledged  imperfec- 
tions to  which  they  extend  their  indulgence.  This 
must  surely  be  deemed  a  reasonable  requisition, 
though  it  is  one  with  which  they  have  not  hitherto 
thought  fit  to  comply. 

The  operation  of  speculative  error  on  the  mind 
is  one  of  the  profoundest  secrets  in  nature^  and  to 


168 

determine  the  precise  quantity  of  evil  resulting 
from  it  in  any  given  case,  (except  the  single  one  of 
its  involving  a  denial  of  fundamental  truth,)  trans- 
cends the  capacity  of  human  nature.  We  must,  in 
order  to  form  a  correct  judgment,  be  not  only  per- 
fectly acquainted  with  the  nature  and  tendency  of 
the  error  in  question,  but  also  with  the  portion  of 
attention  it  occupies,  as  well  as  the  degree  of  zeal 
and  attachment  with  which  it  is  embraced.  We 
must  determine  the  force  of  the  counteracting 
principles,  and  how  far  it  bears  an  affinity  to  the 
predominant  failings  of  him  who  maintains  it, 
how  far  it  coalesces  with  the  weaker  parts  of  his 
moral  constitution.  These  particulars,  however,  it 
is  next  to  impossible  to  explore,  when  the  inquiry 
respects  ourselves;  how  much  more  to  establish  a 
scale  which  shall  mark  by  just  gradations  the  ma- 
lignant influence  of  erroneous  conceptions  on  others. 
On  the  supposition  of  a  formal  denial  of  saving, 
essential  truth,  we  feel  no  difficulty;  we  may  deter- 
mine, without  hesitation,  on  the  testimony  of  God, 
that  it  incurs  a  forfeiture  of  the  blessings  of  the 
new  and  everlasting  covenant,  among  which  the 
communion  of  saints  holds  a  distinguished  place. 
But  such  a  supposition  is  foreign  to  the  present  in- 
quiry. 

Instead  of  losing  ourselves  in  a  labyrinth  of  me- 
taphysical subtleties,  our  only  safe  guide  is  an  ap- 


169 

peal  to  facts;  and  here  we  find  from  experience, 
that  the  sentiments  of  the  Psedobaptist  may  consist 
with  the  highest  attainments  of  piety  exhibited  in 
modern  times,  with  the  most  varied  and  elevated 
forms  of  moral  grandeur,  without  impairing  the 
zeal  of  missionaries,  without  impeding  the  march 
of  confessors  to  their  prisons,  or  of  martyrs  to  the 
flames.  We  are  willing  to  acknowledge  these  tenets 
have  produced  much  mischief  in  communities  and 
nations,  who  have  confounded  baptism  with  rege- 
neration; but  the  mere  belief  of  the  title  of  infants 
to  that  ordinance,  is  a  misconception  of  a  positive 
institute,  much  less  injurious  than  if  it  affected 
the  vital  parts  of  Christianity.  But  be  it  what  it 
may  we  contend  that  it  is  impossible,  without  a  to- 
tal disregard  of  truth  and  decency,  to  assert  that  it 
is  intrinsically  and  essentially  more  pernicious  in 
Us  effects,  than  the  numerous  errors  and  imperfec- 
tions which  the  advocates  of  strict  communion  feel 
no  scruple  in  tolerating  in  the  best  organized 
churches.  It  is  but  justice  to  add,  that  few  or  none 
have  attempted  to  prove  that  it  is  so;  but  have 
satisfied  themselves  with  a  certain  vague  and  loose 
declamation,  better  adapted  to  inflame  prejudice, 
than  to  produce  light  or  conviction. 

In    the    government   of  the   church,  there  is  a 
choice  of  three  modes  of  procedure,  each  consist- 
ent with  itself,  though  not  equally  compatible  with 
15 


170 

the  dictates  of  reason  or  scripture.  We  may  either 
open  the  doors  to  persons  of  all  sentiments  and 
persuasions,  who  maintain  the  messiahship  of 
Christ;  or  insist  upon  an  absolute  uniformity  of 
belief;  or  limit  the  necessity  of  agreement  to  arti- 
cles deemed  fundamental,  leaving  subordinate 
points  to  the  exercise  of  private  judgment.  The 
strict  Baptists  have  feigned  to  themselves  a  fourth, 
of  which  it  is  not  less  difficult  to  form  a  clear  and 
consistent  conception,  than  of  a  fourth  dimension. 
They  have  pursued  the  clue  by  which  other  in- 
quirers  have  been  conducted,  till  they  arrived  at  a 
certain  point,  when  they  refused  to  proceed  a  step 
further,  without  being  able  to  assign  a  single  rea- 
son for  stopping,  which  would  not  equally  prove 
they  had  already  proceeded  too  far.  They  have  at- 
tempted an  incongruous  mixture  of  liberal  princi- 
ples with  a  particular  act  of  intolerance;  and  these, 
like  the  iron  and  clay  in  the  feet  of  Nebuchadnez- 
gars  image,  will  not  mix.  Hence  all  that  want  of 
coherence  and  system  in  their  mode  of  reasoning, 
which  might  be  expected  in  a  defence  not  of  a 
theory,  so  properly,  as  of  a  capricious  sally  of  pre- 
judice. 

Before  I  close  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  must 
just  remark  the  sensible  chagrin  which  the  venera- 
ble Booth  betrays  at  our  insisting  on  the  distinc- 
tion betwixt  fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals 


171 

in  religion,  and  the  singular  manner  in  which  he 
attempts  to  evade  its  force.  After  observing  that 
we  are  wont  in  defence  of  our  practice  to  plead  that 
the  points  at  issue  are  not  fundamental — "  Not 
fundamental,"  he  indignantly  exclaims, "  not  essen- 
tial. But  in  what  sense  is  submission  to  baptism 
not  essential?  To  our  justifying  righteousness,  our 
acceptance  with  God,  or  our  interest  in  his  favour? 
So  is  the  Lord's  supper,  and  so  is  every  part  of  our 
obedience.  They  (the  friends  of  open  communion) 
will  readily  allow  that  an  interest  in  the  divine 
favour  is  not  obtained  by  miserable  sinners,  but 
granted  by  the  eternal  Sovereign:  and  that  accep- 
tance with  the  High  and  Holy  God  is  not  on  con- 
ditions performed  by  us,  but  in  consideration  of 
the  vicarious  obedience,  and  propitiatory  sufferings 
of  the  great  Emanuel." 

u  To  the  pure,  all  things  are  pure."  In  the  mind 
of  Mr.  Booth,  nothing  was  associated  with  this 
language,  I  am  persuaded,  but  impressions  of  piety 
and  devotion;  though  its  unguarded  texture  and 
ambiguous  tendency  are  too  manifest.  For  my  own 
part,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  put  any  other  construction 
upon  it  than  this;  either  that  faith  and  repentance 
are  in  no  respect  conditions  of  salvation,  or  that 
adult  baptism  is  of  equal  necessity  and  importance. 
When  it  is  asked — What  is  essential  to  salvation, 
the  gospel-constitution  is  pre-supposed,  the  great 


172 

facts  in  Christianity  assumed;  and  the  true  import 
of  the  inquiry  is — What  is  essential  to  a  personal  in- 
terest in  the  blessings  secured  by  the  former,  in  the 
felicity  of  which  the  latter  are  the  basis;  in  which 
light,  to  reply — The  atonement  and  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  egregious  trifling,  because  being  things 
out  of  ourselves,  though  the  only  preliminary  basis 
of  human  hope,  it  is  absurd  to  confound  them  with 
the  characteristic  difference  betwixt  such  as  are 
saved,  and  such  as  perish.  When  in  like  manner 
an  inquiry  arises — What  is  fundamental  in  religion, 
as  we  must  be  supposed  by  religion  to  intend  a 
system  of  doctrines  to  be  believed,  and  of  duties  to 
be  performed,  to  direct  us  to  the  vicarious  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  not  as  a  necessary  object  of  be- 
lief, but  as  a  transaction  absolute  and  complete  in 
itself,  and  to  pass  over  in  silence  the  inherent  dis- 
tinction of  character,  the  faith  with  its  renovating 
influence  to  which  the  promise  of  life  is  attached, 
is,  to  speak  in  the  mildest  terms,  toreph  in  a  man- 
ner quite  irrelevant;  and  when  to  this  is  joined, 
even  by  implication,  a  denial  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  distinction,  we  are  conducted  to  the  brink 
of  a  precipice.  The  denial  of  this  is  the  very  core 
of  antinomianism,  to  which  it  is  painful  to  see  so 
able  a  writer,  and  so  excellent  a  man  as  Mr.  Booth, 
make  the  slightest  approach.  We  would  seriously 
ask  whether  it  be  intended  to  deny  that  the  belief 


173 

of  any  doctrines,  or  the  infusion  of  any  principles 
or  dispositions  whatever,  is  essential  to  future  hap- 
piness; if  this  be  intended,  it  supersedes  the  use 
and  necessity  of  every  branch  of  internal  religion. 
If  it  is  not,  we  ask,  Are  correct  views  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism  to  be  classed  among  those  doc- 
trines? 

Had  we  been  contending  for  an  indulgence  to- 
wards such  as  are  convinced  of  the  obligation  of 
believers'  baptism,  but  refuse  to  act  up  to  their  con- 
victions, and  shrink  from  the  cross,  some  parts  of 
the  expostulation  we  have  quoted,  might  be  consi- 
dered as  pertinent;  but  to  attempt  to  explain  away 
a  distinction,  the  most  important  in  theology,  the 
only  centre  of  harmony,  the  only  basis  of  peace  and 
concord,  and  the  grand  bulwark  opposed  to  the 
sophistry  of  the  church  of  Rome,  is  a  humiliating 
instance  of  the  temerity  and  imprudence  incident 
to  the  best  of  men.  The  Jesuit  Twiss,  in  that  con- 
troversy with  the  Protestants,  which  gave  occasion 
to  the  inimitable  defence  of  their  principles  by  the 
immortal  Chillingworth,  betrayed  the  same  impa- 
tience with  our  author  at  this  distinction;  though  in 
perfect  consistence  with  the  doctrines  of  a  church 
which  pretends,  by  an  appeal  to  an  infallible  tribu- 
nal, to  decide  every  controversy,  and  to  preclude 
every  doubt. 

Nothing  but  an  absolute   despair  of  giving  a 
15* 


satisfactory  reply  to  the  arguments  drawn  from 
this  quarter,  could  have  tempted  Mr.  Booth  to 
quarrel  with  a  distinction  so  justly  dear  to  all  Pro- 
testants; and  it  is  no  small  presumption  of  the  just- 
ness of  our  sentiments,  that  the  attempt  to  refute 
them  is  found  to  require  the  subversion  of  the 
most  received  axioms  in  theology,  together  with 
the  strange  paradox,  that  while  much  more  than  we 
suppose  is  necessary  to  communion,  nothing  is 
essential  to  salvation.  In  consideration,  however, 
of  the  embarrassment  of  our  opponents,  we  feel  it 
easy  to  overlook  the  effusions  of  their  discontent; 
but  as  it  is  not  usual  to  consult  the  enemy  on  the 
choice  of  weapons,  we  shall  continue  to  employ 
such  as  we  find  most  efficacious,  though  they  may 
not  be  the  most  pleasant  to  the  touch. 

SECTION  VI. 

The  impolicy  of  the  practice  of  strict  communion 
considered. 

IN  the  affairs  of  religion  and  morality,  where  a 
divine  authority  is  interposed,  the  first  and  chief 
attention  is  due  to  its  dictates,  which  we  are  not 
permitted  to  violate  in  the  least  instance,  though  we 
proposed  by  such  violation  to  promote  the  interests 
of  religion  itself.  She  scorns  to  be  indebted  even 


175 

for  conquest,  to  a  foreign  force:  the  weapons  of 
her  warfare  are  not  carnal.  We  have  on  this  ac- 
count carefully  abstained  from  urging  the  impru- 
dence of  the  measure  we  have  ventured  to  oppose, 
from  an  apprehension  that  we  might  be  suspected 
of  attempting  to  bias  the  suffrage  of  our  readers,  by 
considerations  and  motives  disproportioned  to  the 
majesty  of  revealed  truth.  But  having,  as  I  trust, 
sufficiently  shewn  that  the  practice  of  strict  com- 
munion derives  no  support  from  that  quarter,  the 
way  is  open  for  the  introduction  of  a  few  remarks 
on  the  natural  tendency  and  effect  of  the  two  oppo- 
site systems.  I  would  just  premise  that  I  hope  no 
offence  will  be  given  to  Psedobaptists  by  clenomi^ 
nating  their  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  baptism 
erroneous,  as  though  it  were  expected  that  our  as- 
sertion should  be  accepted  for  proof.  It  is  design- 
ed as  a  simple  statement  of  my  opinion;  and  is  as- 
sumed as  the  basis  of  my  reasoning  with  my  stricter 
brethren. 

Truth  and  error,  as  they  are  essentially  opposite 
in  their  nature,  so  the  causes  to  which  they  are  in- 
debted for  their  perpetuity  and  triumph,  are  not 
less  so.  Whatever  retards  a  spirit  of  inquiry,  is 
favourable  to  error;  whatever  promotes  it,  to  truth. 
But  nothing,  it  will  be  acknowledged,  has  a  greater 
tendency  to  obstruct  the  exercise  of  free  inquiry, 
than  the  spirit  and  feeling  of  a  party.  Let  a  doc- 


176 

trine,  however  erroneous,  become  a  party  distinc- 
tion, and  it  is  at  once  intrenched  in  interests  and 
attachments  which  make  it  extremely  difficult  for 
the  most  powerful  artillery  of  reason  to  dislodge 
it.  It  becomes  a  point  of  honour  in  the  leaders  of 
such  parties,  which  is  from  thence  communicated 
to  their  followers,  to  defend  and  support  their  re- 
spective peculiarities  to  the  last;  and  as  a  natural 
consequence,  to  shut  their  ears  against  all  the  pleas 
and  remonstrances  by  which  they  are  assailed. 
Even  the  wisest  and  best  of  men  are  seldom  aware 
how  much  they  are  susceptible  of  this  sort  of  in- 
fluence; and  while  the  offer  of  a  world  would  be 
insufficient  to  engage  them  to  recant  a  known  truth, 
or  to  subscribe  an  acknowledged  error,  they  are 
often  retained  in  a  willing  captivity  to  prejudices 
and  opinions  which  have  no  other  support,  and 
which,  if  they  could  lose  sight  of  party  feelings, 
they  would  almost  instantly  abandon.  To  what 
other  cause  can  we  ascribe  the  attachment  of  Fe- 
nelon  and  of  Pascal,  men  of  exalted  genius,  and 
undoubted  piety,  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  and  other  innumerable  absurdities  of  the 
church  of  Rome?  It  is  this  alone  which  has  insured 
a  sort  of  immortality  to  those  hideous  productions 
of  the  human  mind,  the  shapeless  abortions  of  night 
and  darkness,  which  reason,  left  to  itself,  would 
have  crushed  in  the  moment  of  their  birth. 


177 

It  is  observable  that  scientific  truths  make  their 
Way  in  the  world,  with  much  more  ease  and  ra- 
pidity than  religious.  No  sooner  is  a  philosophical 
opinion  promulgated,  than  it  undergoes  at  first  a 
severe  and  rigorous  scrutiny;  and  if  it  is  found  to 
coincide  with  the  results  of  experiment,  it  is  spee- 
dily adopted,  and  quietly  takes  its  place  among  the 
improvements  of  the  age.  Every  acquisition  of  this 
kind  is  considered  as  a  common  property;  as  an 
accession  to  the  general  stores  of  mental  opulence. 
Thus  the  knowledge  of  nature,  the  further  it  ad- 
vances from  its  head,  not  only  enlarges  its  channel 
by  the  accession  of  tributary  streams,  but  gradu- 
ally purifies  itself  from  the  mixture  of  error.  If  we 
search  for  the  reason  of  the  facility  with  which 
scientific  improvements  established  themselves  in 
preference  to  religious,  we  shall  find  it  in  the  ab- 
sence of  combination,  in  there  being  no  class  of 
men  closely  united,  who  have  an  interest,  real  or 
imaginary,  in  obstructing  their  progress.  We  hear, 
it  is  true,  of  parties  in  the  republic  of  letters;  but  if 
such  language  is  not  to  be  considered  as  entirely 
allusive  and  metaphorical,  the  ties  which  unite  them 
are  so  slight  and  feeble,  compared  to  those  which 
attach  to  religious  societies,  as  scarcely  to  deserve 
the  name.  The  spirit  of  party  was  much  more  sen- 
sibly felt  in  the  ancient  schools  of  philosophy  than 
in  modern,  on  account  of  philosophical  inquiries 


178 

embracing  a  class  of  subjects  which  are  now  consi- 
dered as  no  longer  belonging  to  its  province.  Before 
revelation  appeared,  whatever  is  most  deeply  in- 
teresting in  the  contemplation  of  God,  of  man,  or 
of  a  future  state,  fell  under  the  cognizance  of  phi- 
losophy; and  hence  it  was  cultivated  with  no  incon- 
siderable portion  of  that  moral  sensibility,  that  soli- 
citude and  alternation  of  hope  and  fear,  respecting 
an  invisible  state,  which  are  now  absorbed  by  the 
gospel.  From  that  time  the  departments  of  the- 
ology and  philosophy  have  become  totally  distinct; 
and  the  genius  of  the  former,  free  and  unfettered. 
In  religious  inquiries,  few  feel  themselves  at 
liberty  to  follow,  without  restraint,  the  light  of  evi- 
dence, and  the  guidance  of  truth,  in  consequence 
of  some  previous  engagement  with  a  party;  and 
though  the  attachment  to  it  might  originally  be 
purely  voluntary,  and  still  continues  such,  the  na- 
tural love  of  consistency,  the  fear  of  shame,  to- 
gether with  other  motives  sufficiently  obvious,  pow- 
erfully contribute  to  perpetuate  and  confirm  it. 
When  an  attachment  to  the  fundamental  truths  of 
religion  is  the  basis  of  the  alliance,  the  steadiness, 
constancy,  and  perseverance  it  produces,  are  of  the 
utmost  advantage;  and  hence  we  admire  the  wis- 
dom of  Christ  in  employing  and  consecrating  the 
social  nature  of  man  in  the  formation  of  a  church. 
It  is  utterly  impossible  to  calculate  the  benefits  of 


179 

the  publicity  and  support  which  Christianity  de- 
rives from  that  source;  nor  will  it  be  doubted  that 
the  intrepidity  evinced  in  confessing  the  most  ob- 
noxious truths,  and  enduring  all  the  indignities  and 
sufferings  which  result  from  their  promulgation,  is 
in  a  great  measure  to  be  ascribed  to  the  same  cause. 
The  concentration  of  the  wills  and  efforts  of  Chris- 
tians, rendered  the  church  a  powerful  antagonist  to 
the  world.  But  when  the  Christian  profession  be- 
came split  and  divided  into  separate  communities, 
each  of  which,  along  with  certain  fundamental 
truths,  retained  a  portion  of  error,  its  reformation 
became  difficult,  just  in  proportion  to  the  strength 
of  these  combinations.  Religious  parties  imply  a 
tacit  compact  not  merely  to  sustain  the  fundamen- 
tal truths  of  revelation  (which  was  the  original  de- 
sign of  the  constitution  of  a  church)  but  also  to 
uphold  the  incidental  peculiarities  by  which  they 
are  distinguished.  They  are  so  many  ramparts  or 
fortifications,  erected  in  order  to  give  a  security 
and  support  to  certain  systems  of  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, beyond  what  they  derive  from  their  native 
force  and  evidence. 

The  difficulty  of  reforming  the  corruptions  of 
Christianity  is  great,  in  a  state  of  things  where  the 
fear  of  being  eclipsed,  and  the  anxiety  in  each  de- 
nomination to  extend  itself  as  much  as  possible, 
tngage,  in  spite  of  the  personal  piety  of  its  mem- 


180 

bers,  all  the  solicitude  and  ardour  which  are  not 
immediately  devoted  to  the  most  essential  truths; 
where  correct  conceptions  on  subordinate  subjects 
are  scarcely  aimed  at,  but  the  particular  views 
which  the  party  has  adopted,  are  either  objects  of 
indolent  acquiescence,  or  zealous  attachment.  In 
such  a  state,  opinions  are  no  otherwise  regarded, 
than  as  they  affect  the  interest  of  a  party;  whate- 
ver conduces  to  augment  its  members,  or  its  cre- 
dit, must  be  supported  at  all  events;  whatever  is  of 
a  contrary  tendency,  discountenanced  and  sup- 
pressed. How  often  do  we  find  much  zeal  expend- 
ed in  the  defence  of  sentiments,  recommended  nei- 
ther by  their  evidence  nor  their  importance,  which, 
could  their  incorporation  with  an  established  creed 
be  forgotten,  would  be  quietly  consigned  to  ob- 
livion. Thus  the  waters  of  life,  instead  of  that  un- 
obstructed circulation  which  would  diffuse  health, 
fertility,  and  beauty,  are  diverted  from  their  chan- 
nels, and  drawn  into  pools  and  reservoirs,  where 
from  their  stagnant  state  they  acquire  feculence 
and  pollution. 

The  inference  we  would  deduce  from  these  facts 
is,  that  if  we  wish  to  revive  an  exploded  truth,  or 
to  restore  an  obsolete  practice,  it  is  of  the  greatest 
moment  to  present  it  to  the  public  in  a  manner 
least  likely  to  produce  the  collision  of  party.  But 
this  is  equivalent  to  saying,  in  other  words,  that  it 


181 

ought  not  to  be  made  the  basis  of  a  sect;  for  the 
prejudices  of  party  are  always  reciprocal,  and  in 
no  instance  is  that  great  law  of  motion  more  ap- 
plicable,  that  re-action  is  always  equal  to  action, 
and  contrary  thereto.  While  it  is  maintained  as  a 
private  opinion,  by  which  I  mean  one  not  charac- 
teristic of  a  sect,  it  stands  upon  its  proper  merits, 
mingles  with  facility  in  different  societies,  and  in 
proportion  to  its  evidence,  and  the  attention  it  ex- 
cites, insinuates  itself  like  leaven,  till  the  whole  is 
leavened. 

Such,  it  should  seem,  was  the  conduct  of  the 
Baptists  before  the  time  of  Luther.  It  appears 
from  the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  historians,  that 
their  sentiments  prevailed  to  a  considerable  extent 
among  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  the  precur- 
sors of  the  Reformation,  to  whom  the  crime  of  an- 
abaptism  is  frequently  ascribed  among  other  here- 
sies: it  is  probable,  however,  that  it  did  not  prevail 
universally;  nor  is  there  the  smallest  trace  to  be 
discovered  of  its  being  made  a  term  of  commu- 
nion. When  the  same  opinions  on  this  subject  were 
publicly  revived  in  the  sixteenth  century,  under  the 
most  unfavourable  auspices,  and  allied  with  turbu- 
lence, anarchy,  and  blood,  no  wonder  they  met 
with  an  unwelcome  reception,  and  that  contempla- 
ted through  such  a  medium,  they  incurred  the  re- 
16 


182 

probation  of  the  wise  and  good.  Whether  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists  held  at  first  any  part  of  the  wild  and 
seditious  sentiments  of  the  German  fanatics,  it  is 
difficult  to  say:  supposing  they  did,  (of  which  I  am 
not  aware  there  is  the  smallest  evidence)  it  is  cer- 
tain they  soon  abandoned  them,  and  adopted  the 
same  system  of  religion  with  other  non-conform- 
ists, except  on  the  article  of  baptism.  But  it  is 
much  to  be  lamented  that  they  continued  to  insist 
on  that  article  as  a  term  of  communion,  by  which 
they  excited  the  resentment  of  other  denomina- 
tions, and  facilitated  the  means  of  confounding 
them  with  the  German  Anabaptists,  with  whom 
they  possessed  nothing  in  common  besides  an  opi- 
nion on  one  particular  rite.  One  feature  of  resem- 
blance, however,  joined  to  an  identity  of  name, 
was  sufficient  to  surmount  in  the  public  feeling  the 
impression  of  all  the  points  of  discrepancy  or  of 
contrast,  and  to  subject  them  to  a  portion  of  the 
infamy  attached  to  the  ferocious  insurgents  of 
Munster.  From  that  period,  the  success  of  the 
baptist  sentiments  became  identified  with  the 
growth  of  a  sect,  which,  rising  under  the  most  un- 
favourable auspices  was  entirely  destitute  of  the 
resources  of  worldly  influence,  and  the  means  of 
popular  attraction;  and  an  opinion  which  by  its  na- 
tive simplicity  and  evidence,  is  entitled  to  com- 


183 

m and  the  suffrages  of  the  world;  was  pent  up  and 
confined  within  the  narrow  precincts  of  a  party, 
where  it  laboured%nder  an  insupportable  weight 
of  prejudice.  It  was  seldom  examined  by  an  im- 
partial appeal  to  the  sacred  oracles,  or  regarded  in 
any  other  light  than  as  the  whimsical  appendage  of 
a  sect,  who  disgraced  themselves  at  the  outset  by 
the  most  criminal  excesses,  and  were  at  no  subse- 
quent period  sufficiently  distinguished  by  talents  or 
numbers  to  command  general  attention. 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  for  zeal  to  over- 
shoot its  mark.  If  a  determined  enemy  of  the 
Baptists  had  been  consulted  on  the  most  effectual 
method  of  rendering  their  principles  unpopular, 
there  is  little  doubt  but  that  he  would  have  recom- 
mended the  very  measures  we  have  pursued:  the 
first  and  most  obvious  effect  of  which  has  been  to 
regenerate  an  inconceivable  mass  of  prejudice  in 
other  denominations.  To  proclaim  to  the  world 
our  determination  to  treat  as  "heathen-men  and 
publicans,"  all  who  are  not  immediately  prepared 
to  concur  with  our  views  of  baptism,  what  is  it 
less  than  the  language  of  hostility  and  defiance;  ad- 
mirably adapted  to  discredit  the  party  which  ex- 
hibits, and  the  principles  which  have  occasioned 
such  a  conduct.  By  thus  investing  these  principles 
with  an  importance  which  does  not  belong  to  them, 


184* 

by  making  them  co-extensive  with  the  existence  of 
a  church,  they  have  indisposed  men  to  listen  to  the 
evidence  by  which  they  are  supported;  and  attempt- 
ing to  establish  by  authority  the  unanimity  which 
should  be  the  fruit  of  conviction,  have  deprived 
themselves  of  the  most  effectual  means  of  pro- 
ducing it.  To  say  that  such  a  mode  of  proceeding 
is  not  adapted  to  convince,  that  refusing  Psedobap- 
tists  the  right  of  communion  has  no  tendency  to 
produce  a  change  of  views,  is  to  employ  most  in- 
adequate language:  it  has  a  powerful  tendency  to 
the  contrary;  it  can  scarcely  fail  to  produce  impres- 
sions most  unfavourable  to  the  system  with  which 
it  is  connected,  impressions  which  the  gentlest 
minds  find  it  difficult  to  distinguish  from  the  ef- 
fects of  insult  and  degradation. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  by  this  sort  of  re-ac- 
tion, that  prejudice  is  excited  unfavourable  to  the  ex- 
tension of  our  principles;  but  by  the  instinctive 
feelings  of  self-defence.— Upon  the  system  of  strict 
communion,  the  moment  a  member  of  a  psedobap- 
tist  church  becomes  convinced  of  the  invalidity  of 
his  infant-baptism,  he  must  deem  it  obligatory  upon 
him  to  relinquish  his  station,  and  dissolve  his  con- 
nection with  the  church;  and  as  a  superiority  of 
ministerial  talents  and  character  is  a  mere  matter 
of  preference,  but  duty  a  matter  of  necessity,  he 


185 

must  at  all  events  connect  himself  with  a  baptist 
congregation,  whatever  sacrifice  it  may  cost  him, 
and  whatever  loss  he  may  incur.  Though  his  pas- 
tor should  possess  the  profundity  and  unction  of 
an  Edwards,  or  the  eloquence  of  a  Spencer,  he 
must  quit  him  for  the  most  superficial  declaimer, 
rather  than  be  guilty  of  spiritual  fornication.  How 
is  it  possible  for  principles  fraught  with  such  a  co- 
rollary, not  to  be  contemplated  with  anxiety  by  our 
psedobaptist  brethren,  who,  however  they  might  be 
disposed  to  exercise  candour  towards  our  senti- 
ments, considered  in  themselves,  cannot  fail  to  per- 
ceive the  most  disorganising  tendency  in  this  their 
usual  appendage.  Viewed  in  such  a  connection, 
their  prevalence  is  a  blow  at  the  very  root  of  pse- 
dobaptist  societies,  since  the  moment  we  succeed 
in  making  a  convert,  we  disqualify  him  for  conti- 
nuing a  member.  We  deposit  a  seed  of  alienation 
and  discord,  which  threatens  their  dissolution,  so 
that  we  need  not  be  surprised  if  other  denomina- 
tions should  be  tempted  to  compare  us  to  the  Eu- 
phratean  horsemen  in  the  apocalypse,  who  are  de- 
scribed as  "  having  tails  like  scorpions,  and  with 
them  they  did  hurt." 

To  these  causes  we  must  undoubtedly  impute 
the  superior  degree  of  prejudice  displayed  by  that 
class  of  Christians,  to  whom  we  make  the  near- 


186 

est  approach,  compared  to  such  as  are  separated 
from  us  by  a  wider  interval.  A  disposition  to  fair 
and  liberal  concession  on  the  points  at  issue,  is  al- 
most confined  to  the  members  of  established 
churches;  and  while  the  most  celebrated  episcopal 
divines,  both  Popish  and  Protestant,  as  well  as  those 
of  the  Scotch  church,  feel  no  hesitation  in  acknow- 
ledging the  import  of  the  word  baptize  is  to  im- 
merse, that  such  was  the  primitive  mode  of  bap- 
tism, and  that  the  right  of  infants  to  that  ordinance 
is  rather  to  be  sustained  on  the  ground  of  ancient 
usage  than  the  authority  of  scripture,  our  dissent- 
ing brethren  are  displeased  with  these  concessions, 
deny  there  is  any  proof  that  immersion  was  ever 
used  in  primitive  times,  and  speak  of  the  exten- 
sion of  baptism  to  infants  with  as  much  confidence 
as  though  it  were  amongst  the  plainest  and  most 
undeniable  dictates  of  revelation-* 

*  Campbell,  speaking-  of  the  authors  of  the  vulgate  version, 
observes — "Some  words  they  have  transferred  from  the  ori- 
ginal into  their  language;  others  they  have  translated.  But  it 
would  not  be  always  easy  to  find  their  reason  for  making  this 
difference.  Thus  the  word  o-sgn-o^jj  they  have  translated  cir- 
cumcisio,  which  exactly  corresponds  in  etymology;  but  the 
word  BocTT^/xa  they  have  retained,  changing  only  the  letters 
from  Greek  to  Roman.  Yet  the  latter  was  just  as  suscepti- 
ble of  a  literal  version  into  Latin  as  the  former.  Immersio, 
tiot  answers  as  exactly  in  one  case,  as  circumcitio,  in  the' 


187 

To  such  a  height  has  this  animosity  been  earn- 
ed, that  there  are  not  wanting  persons  who  seem 
anxious  to  revive  the  recollection  of  Munster,  and 
by  republishing  the  narrative  of  the  enormities  per- 

other."  A  little  after  he  observes — <(1  should  think  the  word 
immersion  (which  though  of  Latin  origin,  is  an  English  noun, 
regularly  formed  from  the  word  to  immerse,)  a  better  Eng- 
lish name  than  baptism,  were  we  now  at  liberty  to  make  a 
choice;  but  we  are  not.*'— Preliminary  Dissertations  to  theTra?is- 

lation  of  the  Gospels,  page  354,  355.  4to.  ed. He  elsewhere 

mentions  it  as  one  of  the  strongest  instances  of  prejudice, 
that  he  has  known  some  persons  of  piety  who  have  denied 
that  the  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse. 

With  respect  to  the  subject,  it  is  worthy  of  observation  that 
the  authors  of  the  celebrated  scheme  of  popish  doctrine  and 
discipline  called  the  Interim,  enumerate  the  baptism  of  infants 
among  traditions,  and  that  in  the  most  emphatic  manner.  For 
having  stated  that  the  church  has  two  rules  of  faith,  scrip- 
ture and  tradition,  they  observe,  after  treating  of  the  first, 
ccclesia  habet  quoque  traditiones,  inter  alia  baptismus  parvulo- 
rwn,"  &c.  they  mention*,  however,  no  other,  from  whence  it  is 
natural  to  infer  that  they  considered  this  as  the  strongest  in- 
stance of  that  species  of  rules.  The  total  silence  of  scripture 
has  induced  not  a  few  of  the  most  illustrious  scholars  to  con- 
sider infant-baptism  not  of  divine  right;  amongst  whom,  were 
we  disposed  to  boast  of  great  names,  we  might  mention  Sal- 
masius,  Suicer,  and  above  all,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  who,  if  we 
may  believe  the  honest  Whiston,  frequently  declared  to  him 
his  conviction  that  the  Baptists  were  the  only  Christians  who 
had  not  symbolized  with  the  church  of  Rome. — See  Whiston' a 
J\I??noirs  of  his  own  Life. 


188 

petrated  there,  under  the  title  of  the  History  of  the 
Baptists,  to  implicate  us  in  the  infamy  and  guilt  of 
those  transactions.  While  we  must  reprobate  such 
a  spirit,  we  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  the 
practice  of  exclusive  communion  is  admirably 
adapted  to  excite  it,  in  minds  of  a  certain  order. 

That  practice  is  not  less  objectionable  on  another 
ground.  By  discouraging  Psedobaptists  from  fre- 
quenting our  assemblies,  it  militates  against  the 
most  effectual  means  of  diffusing  sentiments  which 
we  consider  most  consonant  to  the  sacred  oracles. 
It  cannot  be  expected  that  pious  worshippers 
will  attend,  except  from  absolute  necessity,  where 
they  are  detained,  if  we  may  so  speak,  in  the  courts 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  denied  access  to  the  interior 
privileges  of  the  sanctuary. 

The  congregations  accordingly,  where  this  prac- 
tice prevails,  are  almost  entirely  composed  of  per- 
sons of  our  own  persuasion,  who  are  so  far  from 
requiring  an  additional  stimulus,  that  it  is  much  of- 
tener  necessary  to  restrain  than  to  excite  their  ar- 
dour; while  the  only  description  of  persons  who 
could  be  possibly  benefitted  by  instruction  are  out  of 
its  reach;  compelled  by  this  intolerant  practice  to  join 
societies,  where  they  will  hear  nothing  but  what  is 
adapted  to  confirm  them  in  their  ancient  prejudices. 
Thus  an  impassable  barrier  is  erected  betwixt  the 


189 

Baptists  and  other  denominations,  in  consequence 
of  which,  few  opportunities  are  afforded  of  trying 
the  effect  of  calm  and  serious  argumentation,  in 
situations  were  alone  it  could  prove  effectual.  In 
those  baptist  churches  in  which  an  opposite  plan 
has  been  adopted,  the  attendance  of  such  as  are  not 
of  our  sentiments  meeting  with  no  discouragement, 
is  often  extensive;  Baptists  and  Psedobaptists,  by 
participating  in  the  same  privileges,  become  closely 
united  in  the  ties  of  friendship;  of  which  the  effect 
is  uniformly  found  to  be  a  perpetual  increase  in 
the  number  of  the  former,  compared  to  the  latter, 
till  in  some  societies  the  opposite  sentiments  have 
nearly  subsided  and  disappeared. 

Nor  is  this  more  than  might  be  expected  from 
the  nature  of  things,  supposing  us  to  have  truth 
on  our  side.  For  admitting  this  to  be  the  case, 
what  can  give  permanence  to  the  sentiments  to 
which  we  are  opposed,  except  a  recumbent  indo- 
lence, or  an  active  prejudice;  and  is  it  not  evident 
that  the  practice  of  exclusive  communion  has  the 
strongest  tendency  to  foster  both  those  evils,  the 
former  by  withdrawing,  I  might  say  repelling,  the 
erroneous  from  the  best  means  of  instruction;  the 
latter  by  the  apparent  harshness  and  severity  of 
such  a  proceeding.  It  is  not  by  keeping  at  a  dis- 
tance from  mankind  that  we  must  expect  to  ac- 


190 

quire  an  ascendancy  over  them,  but  by  approach- 
ing, by  conciliating  them,  and  securing  a  passage 
to  their  understanding  through  the  medium  of  their 
hearts.  Truth  will  glide  into  the  mind  through  the 
channel  of  the  affections,  which  were  it  to  approach 
in  the  naked  majesty  of  evidence,  would  meet  with 
a  certain  repulse. 

Betraying  a  total  ignorance  of  forgetfulness  of 
these  indubitable  facts,  what  is  the  conduct  of  our 
opponents?  They  assume  a  menacing  aspect,  pro- 
claim themselves  the  only  true  church,  and  assert 
that  they  alone  are  entitled  to  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments. None  are  alarmed  at  this  language,  none 
are  induced  to  submit,  but  turning  with  a  smile 
or  a  frown  to  gentler  leaders,  they  leave  us  to 
triumph  without  a  combat,  and  to  dispute  with- 
out an  opponent. 

If  we  consider  the  way  in  which  men  are  led  to 
form  just  conclusions  on  the  principal  subjects  of 
controversy,  we  shall  not  often  find  that  it  is  the 
fruit  of  an  independent  effort  of  mind,  determined 
to  search  for  truth  in  her  most  hidden  recesvses,  and 
discover  her  under  every  disguise.  The  number  of 
such  elevated  spirits  is  small;  and  though  evidence 
is  the  only  source  of  rational  conviction,  a  variety 
of  favourable  circumstances  usually  contribute  to 
bring  it  into  contact  with  the  mind,  such  as  fre- 


191 

quent  intercourse,  a  favourable  disposition  towards 
the  party  which  maintains  it,  habits  of  deference 
and  respect,  and  gratitude  for  benefits  received. 
The  practice  of  confining  communion  to  our  own 
denomination,  seems  studiously  contrived  to  pre- 
clude us  from  these  advantages,  and  to  transfer 
them  to  the  opposite  side. 

The  policy  of  intolerance  is  exactly  proportion- 
ed to  the  capacity  of  inspiring  fear.  The  church 
of  Rome  for  many  ages  practised  it,  with  infinite 
advantage,  because  she  possessed  ample  means  of 
intimidation.  Her  pride  grew  with  her  success,  her 
intolerance  with  her  pride;  and  she  did  not  aspire 
to  the  lofty  pretension  of  being  the  only  true  church, 
till  she  saw  monarchs  at  her  feet,  and  held  king- 
doms in  chains;  till  she  was  flushed  with  victory, 
giddy  with  her  elevation,  and  drunk  with  the  blood 
of  the  saints.  But  what  was  policy  in  her,  would 
be  the  height  of  infatuation  in  us,  who  are  neither 
entitled  by  our  situation,  nor  by  our  crimes,  to  as- 
pire to  this  guilty  pre-eminence.  I  am  fully  per- 
suaded that  few  of  our  brethren  have  duly  reflect- 
ed on  the  strong  resemblance  which  subsists  be- 
twixt the  pretensions  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and 
the  principles  implied  in  strict  communion;  both 
equally  intolerant,  the  one  armed  with  pains  and 
penalties,  the  other,  I  trust,  disdaining  such  aid; 


193 

the  one  the  intolerance  of  power,  the  other  of 
weakness. 

From  a  full  conviction  that  our  views  as  a  de- 
nomination correspond  with  the  dictates  of  scrip- 
ture, it  is  impossible  for  me  to  entertain  a  doubt 
of  their  ultimate  prevalence;  but  unless  we  retrace 
our  steps,  and  cultivate  a  cordial  union  with  our 
fellow-christians,  I  greatly  question  whether  their 
success  will  in  any  degree  be  ascribable  to  our  ef- 
forts. It  is  much  more  probable  that  the  light  will 
arise  in  another  quarter,  from  persons  by  whom 
we  are  unknown,  but  who,  in  consequence  of  an 
unction  from  the  Holy  One,  are  led  to  examine  the 
scripture  with  perfect  impartiality,  and  in  the  ar- 
dour of  their  pursuit  after  truth,  alike  to  overlook 
the  misconduct  of  those  who  have  opposed,  and  of 
those  who  have  maintained  it. 

Happily,  the  final  triumph  of  truth  is  not  depen- 
dant on  human  modes  of  exhibition. — Man  is  the 
recipient,  not  the  author  of  it:  it  partakes  of  the 
nature  of  the  Deity;  it  is  his  offspring,  its  indisso- 
luble relation  to  whom  is  a  surer  pledge  of  its  per- 
petuity and  support  than  finite  power  or  policy. 
While  we  are  at  a  certainty  respecting  the  final 
issue,  "  the  times  and  the  seasons  God  hath  put  in 
his  own  power;"  nor  are  we  ever  more  liable  to  err, 
than  when  in  surveying  the  purposes  of  God,  we 


193 

descend  from  the  elevation  of  general  views,  to  a 
minute  specification  of  times  and  instruments.  How 
long  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  in  its  purity  and 
simplicity,  may  be  doomed  to  neglect,  it  is  not  for 
us  to  conjecture;  but  of  this  we  are  fully  persuaded, 
it  will  never  be  generally  restored  to  the  church 
through  the  medium  of  a  party.  This  mode  of  pro- 
cedure has  been  already  sufficiently  tried,  and  is 
found  utterly  ineffectual. 

The  labour  bestowed  upon  these  sheets  has  not 
arisen  from  an  indifference  to  the  interests  of  truth, 
but  from  a  sincere  wish  to  promote  them,  by  dis- 
engaging it  from  the  unnatural  confinement  in  which 
it  has  been  detained  by  the  injudicious  conduct  of 
its  advocates.  How  far  the  reasoning  adduced,  or 
the  spirit  displayed  on  this  subject,  is  entitled  to  ap- 
probation, must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  re- 
ligious public.  If  any  offence  has  been  given  by 
the  appearance  of  unbecoming  severity,  it  will  give 
me  real  concern;  and  the  more  so  because  there  are 
not  a  few  amongst  our  professed  opponents  in  this 
controversy,  to  whom  I  look  up  with  undissembled 
esteem  an  I  \  o  ration. 

Having  omitted  nothing  which  app  red  essen- 
tially connected  with  the  subject,  I  hasten  to  close 
this  disquisition;  previously  to  which,  it  may  not 
be  improper  briefly  to  recal  the  attention  to  the 
17 


194 

principal  topics  of  argument.  We  have  endeavour- 
ed  to  shew  that  the  practice  of  strict  communion 
derives  no  support  from  the  supposed  priority  of 
baptism  to  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  order  of  insti- 
tution, which  order  is  exactly  the  reverse;  that  it  is 
not  countenanced  by  the  tenor  of  the  Apostles' 
commission,  nor  by  apostolic  precedent,  the  spirit 
of  which  is  in  our  favour,  proceeding  on  principles 
totally  dissimilar  to  the  case  under  discussion;  that 
the  opposite  practice  is  enforced  by  the  obligations 
of  Christian  charity;  that  it  is  indubitably  compre- 
hended within  the  canon  which  enjoins  forbearance 
towards  mistaken  brethren;  that  the  system  of  our 
opponents  unchurches  every  Paedobaptist  commu- 
nity; that  it  rests  on  no  general  principle;  that  it 
attempts  to  establish  an  impossible  medium;  that  it 
inflicts  a  punishment  which  is  capricious  and  un- 
just; and  finally,  that  by  fomenting  prejudice,  and 
precluding  the  most  effectual  means  of  conviction, 
it  defeats  its  own  purpose. 

Should  the  reasoning  under  any  one  of  these 
heads  be  found  to  be  conclusive,  however  it  may 
fail  in  others,  it  will  go  far  towards  establishing 
our  leading  position,  that  no  church  has  a  right  to 
establish  terms  of  communion,  -which  are  not  terms 
of  salvation.  With  high  consideration  of  the  talents 
of  many  of  my  brethren  who  differ  from  me,  I  have 


195 

yet  no  apprehension  that  the  sum  total  of  the  argu» 
ment  admits  a  satisfactory  reply. 

A  tender  consideration  of  human  imperfection 
is  not  merely  the  dictate  of  revelation,  but  the  law 
of  nature,  exemplified  in  the  most  striking  man- 
ner, in  the  conduct  of  him  whom  we  all  profess  to 
follow.  How  wide  the  interval  which  separated  his 
religious  knowledge  and  attainments  from  that  of 
his  disciples;  he,  the  fountain  of  illumination,  they 
encompassed  with  infirmities.  But  did  he  recede 
from  them  on  that  account?  No:  he  drew  the  bond 
of  union  closer,  imparted  successive  streams  of  ef- 
fulgence, till  he  incorporated  his  spirit  with  theirs, 
and  elevated  them  into  a  nearer  resemblance  of 
himself.  In  imitating  by  our  conduct  towards  our 
mistaken  brethren  this  great  exemplar,  we  cannot 
err.  By  walking  together  with  them  as  far  as  we 
are  agreed,  our  agreement  will  extend,  our  differ- 
ences lessen,  and  love,  which  rejoiceth  in  the  truth, 
will  gradually  open  our  hearts  to  higher  and  nobler 
inspirations. 

Might  we  indulge  a  hope  that  not  only  our  de- 
nomination, but  every  other  description  of  Chris- 
tians, would  act  upon  these  principles,  we  should 
hail  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day,  and  consider  it  as 
a  nearer  approach  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
church,  than  the  annals  of  time  have  yet  recorded. 
In  the  accomplishment  of  our  Saviour's  prayer,  we 


196 

should  behold  a  demonstration  of  the  divinity  of 
his  mission,  which  the  most  impious  could  not  re- 
sist; we  should  behold  in  the  church  a  peaceful 
haven,  inviting  us  to  retire  from  the  tossings  and 
perils  of  this  unquiet  ocean,  to  a  sacred  inclosure, 
a  sequestered  spot,  which  the  storms  and  tempests 
of  the  world  were  not  permitted  to  invade. 

"  Intus  aquae  dulces,  vivoque  sedilia  saxo; 
Nympharum  domus:  hie  fessas  non  vincula  naves 
Ulla  tenent,  unco  non  alligat  anchora  morsu." 

VIRGIL. 

The  genius  of  the  gospel,  let  it  once  for  all  be 
remembered,  is  not  ceremonial,  but  spiritual,  con- 
sisting not  in  meats  or  drinks,  or  outward  observ- 
ances, but  in  the  cultivation  of  such  interior  graces, 
as  compose  the  essence  of  virtue,  perfect  the  cha- 
racter, and  purify  the  heart.  These  form  the  soul 
of  religion;  all  the  rest  are  but  her  terrestrial  at- 
tire, which  she  will  lay  aside  when  she  passes  the 
threshold  of  eternity.  When,  therefore,  the  obli- 
gations of  humility  and  love  come  into  competi- 
tion with  a  punctual  observance  of  external  rites, 
the  genius  of  religion  will  easily  determine  to  which 
we  should  incline:  but  when  the  question  is  not 
whether  we  shall  attend  to  them  ourselves,  but 
whether  we  shall  enforce  them  on  others,  the  an- 
swer is  still  more  ready.  All  attempts  to  urge  men 


497 

forward  even  in  the  right  path,  beyoad  the  mea- 
sure of  their  light,  are  impracticable  in  our  situa* 
tion,  if  they  were  lawful;  and  unlawful,  if  they 
were  practicable.  Augment  their  light,  conciliate 
their  affections,  and  they  will  follow  of  their  own 
accord. 


17* 


AN  objection  to  the  hypothesis  which  assigns 
the  origin  o'  Christian  baptism  to  .the  commission 
which  the  Apostles  received  at  our  Lord's  resur- 
rection, may  possibly  be  urged  from  the  baptisms 
performed  by  his  disciples  during  his  personal  mi- 
nistry; and  as  no  notice  is  taken  of  that  circum- 
stance in  the  body  of  the  work,  I  beg  leave  to  sub- 
mit the  following  observations  to  the  reader:— We 
are  informed  by  one  of  the  evangelists,  that  Christ, 
by  the  instrumentality  of  his  disciples,  at  one 
period  "made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than 
John."*  The  following  remarks  may  possibly  cast 
some  light  on  this  subject:— 

!•  A  divine  commission  was  given  to  the  son  of 
Zechariah,  to  announce  the  speedy  manifestation 

*  John  iv.  1. 


£00 

of  the  Messiah;  or  which  is  equivalent,  to  declare 
that  "the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand;"  with 
an  injunction  solemnly  to  immerse  in  water  as 
many  as,  in  consequence  of  that  intelligence,  pro- 
fessed repentance  and  reformation  of  life;  and  as 
he  was  the  only  person  who  had  been  known  to  in* 
itiate  his  disciples  by  that  rite,  it  was  natural  for 
him  to  be  distinguished  by  the  appellation  of  the 
Baptist  or  the  Immerser.  The  scriptures  are  to- 
tally silent  respecting  any  mission  to  baptize  apart 
from  his.  It  is  by  no  means  certain,  however,  that 
he  was  the  only  person  who  performed  that  cere- 
mony: indeed,  when  we  consider  the  prodigious 
multitudes  who  flocked  to  him,  the  "inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem,  Judasa,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,"  it  seems  scarcely  practicable:  he 
most  probably  employed  coadjutors,  though  the 
practice  having  originated  with  him,  it  was  foreign 
to  the  purpose  of  the  evangelists  to  notice  that  cir- 
cumstance. 

2.  Our  Lord,  who  had  already  evinced  the  pro- 
foundest  respect  to  his  mission,  by  receiving  bap- 
tism at  his  hands,  was,  in  consequence  of  his  being 
the  Messiah,  undoubtedly  authorised  personally  to 
perform  any  religious  rite  or  office  which  was  at 
that  time  in  force,  as  well  as  to  delegate  to  others 
the  power  of  performing  it;  and  as  immersion  in 


201 

token  of  repentance  and  preparation  for  the  King- 
dom of  God,  then  at  hand,  was  an  important  branch 
of  the  religion  then  obligatory,  it  was  with  the 
greatest  propriety  that  he  not  only  submitted  to  it 
himself,  but  authorised  his  disciples  to  perform  it* 
This,  however,  is  by  no  means  sufficient  to  consti- 
tute a  distinct  rite  or  ordinance;  and  since  it  was 
not  accompanied  with  a  distinct  confession  of  faith, 
nor  possessed  any  distinct  signification,  it  could  not 
be  considered  as  originating  a  new  institution,  but 
as  a  mere  co-operation  with  his  forerunner  in  one 
and  the  same  work. 

3.  We  have  already  shewn  at  large  that  the  prin- 
cipal difference  betwixt  John's  baptism,  and  that 
which  the  Apostles  were  commissioned  to  perform 
after  our  Saviour's  ascension,  consisted  in  the 
former  not  being  celebrated  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 
But  there  is  just  as  much  difficulty  in  supposing  it 
performed  by  his  disciples  in  that  name,  during  his 
abode  on  earth,  as  by  his  forerunner.  It  would 
have  equally  defeated  the  purpose  of  that  caution 
which  he  uniformly  maintained;  and  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  he  would  strictly  charge  his  disciples 
to  tell  no  man  that  he  was  the  Christ,  while  he  au- 
thorised them  to  disclose  that  very  secret  to  the 
mixed  multitude,  as  often  as  they  baptized;  nor 


302 

could  the  use  of  his  name  in  that  ordinance  be  se- 
parated from  such  a  disclosure. 

4.  In  addition  to  this,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  John  and  our  Lord  (by  the  hands  of  his  dis- 
ciples) both  baptized  at  the  same  period:  their  mi- 
nistry was  contemporary.  Now  if  we  assert  that  our 
Lord  enjoined  one  confession  of  faith  in  baptism, 
and  John  another,  we  shall  have  different  dispen- 
sations of  religion  subsisting  at  the  same  time,  and 
must  suppose  the  people  were  under  an  obligation 
to  believe  one  thing  as  the  disciples  of  John,  and 
another  as  the  disciples  of  Christ.  But  this  it  is 
impossible  to  admit.  There  is  unquestionably  at  all 
seasons,  a  perfect  harmony  in  the  economies  of 
religion,  so  that  two  different  ones  are  never  in 
force  at  one  and  the  same  time.  The  first  ceases 
when  the  next  succeeds,  just  as  Judaism  was  abo- 
lished by  Christianity,  and  the  Patriarchal  dispen- 
sation superseded  by  Judaism.  Unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  assert  that  the  dispensations  of  religion 
are  not  obligatory,  one  light  in  which  they  must  be 
considered  is  that  of  different  laws,  or  codes  of 
law;  but  it  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  laws,  that 
the  new  one,  except  it  be  merely  declaratory,  inva- 
riably repeals  the  old.  In  whatever  particular  it 
differs,  it  necessarily  abolishes  or  annuls  the  for- 
mer. But  as  John  continued  to  baptize  by  divine 


203 

authority,  at  the  same  time  with  the  disciples  of 
our  Saviour,  it  is  evident  his  institution  was  not 
superseded.  Consequently,  it  was  of  such  a  nature 
that  it  could  subsist  in  conjunction  with  the  bap- 
tisms performed  by  our  Lord,  through  the  hands 
of  his  Apostles.  But  for  the  reason  already  alleged, 
this  could  not  have  been  the  case,  unless  it  had  been 
one  and  the  same  thing.  The  inference  I  wish  to 
deduce  from  the  whole  is,  that  the  baptisms  cele- 
brated by  Christ's  disciples  during  his  personal 
ministry,  in  no  respect  differed  from  John's  either 
in  the  action  itself,  or  in  the  import,  but  were 
merely  a  joint  execution  of  the  same  work;  agree- 
ably to  which,  we  find  a  perfect  identity  in  the  lan- 
guage which  our  Saviour  enjoined  his  disciples  to 
use,  and  in  the  preaching  of  John:  "  Repent  ye, 
for  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."  Whatever 
information  our  Lord  imparted  to  his  disciples  be- 
yond that  which  was  communicated  by  his  fore- 
runner, (which  we  all  know  was  much),  was  given 
in  detached  portions,  at  distinct  intervals,  and  was 
never  embodied  or  incorporated  with  any  positive 
institution,  till  after  his  ascension,  which  may  be 
considered  as  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  in  its  strictest  sense. 


THE  END. 


J 


SOLD  BY 
ANTHONY  FINLEY 

AT0.  33,  South  Fourth  Stn 


Where  Library  Compani 
&c.  are  supplied  on  lito 
ral  terms. 


VA  0378 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


